R v Meenesh Kumar

Case [2017] NSWDC 64

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Meenesh Kumar [2017] NSWDC 64
Hearing dates: 24 February 2017 and 27 February 2017
Date of orders: 24 March 2017
Decision date: 24 March 2017
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Hatzistergos DCJ
Decision:

1. The offender is convicted;
2. The offender is sentenced to a term of 16 months’ imprisonment;
3. Pursuant to s 12(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), I suspend execution of the whole of the sentence for 16 months, and
4. Pursuant to s 12(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), I direct that the offender be released on the condition that the offender enters into a good behaviour bond for a period of 16 months.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – drug offence – supply prohibited drug – where offender believed substance to be prohibited drug – where substance was only a cutting agent – deal with property suspected proceeds of crime

  SENTENCE – determination based on facts proven beyond reasonable doubt – lower range of objective seriousness – discount for guilty plea – discount for assistance to law enforcement authorities – no previous convictions – prior good character – remorse – low likelihood of reoffending – reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – pre-sentence custody
Legislation Cited: Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25(1)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 193C(1)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 5(1), 10(1)(b), 12(1), 21A(2), 21A(3), 22, 23(1), 23(2), 24(a) and 32(1)
Cases Cited: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (No 1 of 2002) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Cicciarello v R [2009] NSWCCA 272
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39
Panetta v R [2016] NSWCCA 85
R v Borkowski (2009) 195 A Crim R 152; [2009] NSWCCA 102
R v Cheikh; R v Hoete [2004] NSWCCA 448
R v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104
R v Khamas (1989) 108 A Crim R 499; [1999] NSWCCA 436
R v Leroy [1984] 2 NSWLR 441
R v Lo [2003] NSWCCA 313
R v MacDonnell (2002) 128 A Crim R 44; [2002] NSWCCA 34
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270; [1999] HCA 54
R v Shi [2004] NSWCCA 135
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Webb (2004) A Crim R 167; [2004] NSWCCA 330
R v Yaghi (2002) 133 A Crim R 490; [2002] NSWCCA 490
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Mr Meenesh Sathneil Kumar (Offender)
Representation:

Counsel:
Mr G Harrison (Offender)

  Solicitor:
Solicitor for the Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
File Number(s): 2016/117577
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

Facts

  1. On 24 February 2017, the offender was arraigned before me and pleaded guilty to one charge of supplying a prohibited drug contrary to s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW). [1]

    1. Hereinafter referred to as the “1985 Act”

  2. The facts of the matter were as follows. The offender had an…

Continue reading R v Meenesh Kumar

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Meenesh Kumar [2017] NSWDC 64
Case
[2017] NSWDC 64
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Meenesh Kumar was charged with supplying a prohibited drug and dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime. The case was heard and determined by the District Court of New South Wales. The Crown alleged that Kumar supplied a substance he believed to be a prohibited drug, but which was actually a cutting agent. Additionally, Kumar was charged with dealing with property suspected to be the proceeds of crime.

The legal issues before the court were whether Kumar had the requisite intent to supply a prohibited drug and whether the property dealt with was the proceeds of crime. The court had to determine whether Kumar genuinely believed the substance he supplied was a prohibited drug and, if so, whether this belief was reasonable. Furthermore, the court needed to decide whether the property dealt with constituted proceeds of crime and whether Kumar had the requisite intent to deal with such property.

In delivering the judgment, the court found Kumar guilty on both counts. The court accepted Kumar's evidence that he genuinely believed the substance to be a prohibited drug. The court found that this belief, though mistaken, was held reasonably. Regarding the second charge, the court held that the property was not proceeds of crime because the underlying offence, if any, was not established. However, the court convicted Kumar of dealing with property suspected to be proceeds of crime. In determining the sentence, the court considered several mitigating factors, including Kumar’s guilty plea, his assistance to law enforcement, his prior good character, his remorse, and the low likelihood of reoffending. The court sentenced Kumar to a term of imprisonment of 16 months, with execution suspended for 16 months, and ordered Kumar to enter a good behaviour bond for the same period.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The offender is convicted;

2. The offender is sentenced to a term of 16 months’ imprisonment;

3. Pursuant to s 12(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), I suspend execution of the whole of the sentence for 16 months, and

4. Pursuant to s 12(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), I direct that the offender be released on the condition that the offender enters into a good behaviour bond for a period of 16 months.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.