R v Pulendren

Case [2010] NSWDC 335


CITATION: R v Pulendren [2010] NSWDC 335
HEARING DATE(S): 02/09/10, 03/09/10, 10/09/10
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

20 September 2010
JURISDICTION: Criminal
JUDGMENT OF: Tupman DCJ
DECISION: Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five and a half years commencing on 24 November 2009 and expiring on 23 April 2015 with a non-parole period of three years commencing on 24 November 2009 and expiring on 23 November 2012
CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Commonwealth sentence - people smuggling Sri Lanka Tamil asylum seekers - S232A(1) Migration Act - mandatory prison term - early plea of guilty - disclosing offence to authorities - acting as local agent for broader people smuggling syndicate in Sri Lanka, Malaysia and Indonesia - financial gain motive - considering comparable people smuggling sentences - applying Commonwealth sentencing principles
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914
Migration Act
CASES CITED: Cita v R (2001) 120 A Crim R 307
R v Daoed (2005) 158 A Crim R 381
R v Disun (2003) 27 WAR 146
R v Al Jenabi [2004] NTSC 44
PARTIES: Commonwealth DPP
Pathmendra PULENDREN
FILE NUMBER(S): 2009/00056107
COUNSEL: Mr P McGuire (CDPP)
SOLICITORS: Mr M Cavanagh (for offender)

SENTENCE

HER HONOUR:
1. The offender is before me for sentence following his plea of guilty in the Local Court on 24 November 2009 to one count contrary to s 232A(1) of the Migration Act, which was then in force, namely, that between 1 February 2009 and 28 June 2009 at Pendle Hill, he facilitated the bringing or coming to Australia of a group of five or more people who had no lawful visa to enter Australia, he being reckless as to whether or not they had a lawful right to do so. It is the offence known as people smuggling.

2. Brought under these provisions of the Migration Act, there is a maximum penalty of twenty years imprisonment. Further, the legislature has seen fit to enact mandatory sentencing provisions for this offence. Section 233C of the Migration Act provides that, for a person in this offender’s position, there is a mandatory term of imprisonment of five years with a mandatory minimum non-parole period of three years. Further, s 233B of the Act prevents a judge from dealing with this offence pursuant to s 19B; namely without conviction. So, for any adult person who pleads guilty to this offence, or is convicted of it, notwithstanding his or her role in the offence, notwithstanding their own personal circumstances, or any other matter, a sentencing judge has no discretion but must impose a sentence of at least five years with a minimum non-parole period of at least three years.

3. Because he is being sentenced as a Commonwealth offender, I am required to have regard to the matters set out in Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914, in particular s 16A. I accept that, in applying these provisions, a sentencing judge should herself operate under the governing principle in s 16A(1), which provides that “a court must impose a sentence…

Continue reading R v Pulendren

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Pulendren [2010] NSWDC 335
Case
[2010] NSWDC 335
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Pulendren, was convicted of people smuggling Sri Lankan Tamil asylum seekers into Australia, a crime under section 232A(1) of the Migration Act. The case was heard in the Federal Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for the appellant, considering the mandatory minimum prison term stipulated by law and the specific circumstances surrounding the offence.

The court considered several factors in crafting the sentence, including the appellant's early plea of guilty, his role as a local agent in a broader people smuggling syndicate operating across Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Indonesia, and his motive for financial gain. The court compared this case with other people smuggling sentences to ensure consistency and fairness in the application of Commonwealth sentencing principles. Given these factors, the court imposed a sentence of five and a half years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years. This sentence took into account the appellant's cooperation with authorities and his role in facilitating the smuggling operation, while also adhering to the statutory requirements and broader sentencing guidelines.

The court concluded that the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the appellant's involvement in the people smuggling syndicate. The sentence also provided a degree of deterrence against future offences of this kind. The court's decision was guided by the need to balance the mandatory minimum term with the specific circumstances of the case, ensuring that justice was served in a manner consistent with legal principles and precedents.

Orders

Orders of the court

Sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five and a half years commencing on 24 November 2009 and expiring on 23 April 2015 with a non-parole period of three years commencing on 24 November 2009 and expiring on 23 November 2012

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.