R v Rahman - [2019] NSWDC 868

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rahman [2019] NSWDC 868
Hearing dates: 06 December 2019
Date of orders: 06 December 2019
Decision date: 06 December 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
A term of imprisonment of 12 months, to be served by way of an intensive corrections orders pursuant to s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999: at [38].

Catchwords: SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders
SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Financial gain — Multiple victims — Planned or organised criminal activity — General principles
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Rehabilitation — Plea of guilty — Unlikely to re-offend
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Parity — Delay — Deterrence — Objective seriousness — Sentencing statistics
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Johnston v R [2017] NSWCCA 5
Kemp v R [2012] NSWCCA 281
Lee v R [2019] NSWCCA 15
R v Blanco (1999) 106 A Crim R 303
R v Islam; R v Ahmed [2019] NSWDC 546
R v Yeoh; R v Mohammed; R v Zhang; R v Lee [2018] NSWDC 201
Thangavelautham v R [2016] NSWCCA 141
Texts Cited: Nil
Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Crown)
Syed Rahman (Offender)
Representation:
Mr D Waldmann (Solicitor Advocate for the Crown)
Mr M Pickin (Counsel for the offender)

File Number(s): 2018/27691

Judgment

Syed Rahman, now 64 years of age and he appears for sentence having pleaded guilty to one count of under s 192J of the Crimes Act 1900, of dealing with identification information with the intention of committing or facilitating the commission of an indictable offence. The offence carries a maximum penalty of ten years with no standard non-parole period.
It is agreed that he pleaded guilty at an early stage in circumstances which would justify a 25% discount on the term of any imprisonment for the utilitarian value of the plea.
The sentence must take account of the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Rahman had originally pleaded guilty to a count under s 93T of the Crimes Act 1900, of knowingly participate in a criminal group, but withdrew that plea and was then arraigned on the present indictment after the s 93T offence was withdrawn.
He spent no time in custody. The sentence received will require some consideration of the detail of sentences for other people who were involved in the course of conduct leading to this plea.
The agreed facts in this case show that a police strike force had investigated the systemic manufacture of fraudulent, cloned credit cards by credit card skimming and the use of those cloned cards at ATMs and EFTPOS machines throughout New South Wales. Police identified a criminal group which conducted a highly sophisticated scheme of credit/debit card skimming using taxi drivers and others to conduct large amounts of fraudulent withdrawals from the ATM network. The group include (Islam, the ringleader, I sentenced…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Rahman

Details

AGLC: R v Rahman [2019] NSWDC 868
Case: [2019] NSWDC 868
Decision Date: 06 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Rahman involved the sentencing of the defendant, Rahman, following his conviction for a series of criminal activities. The dispute centred around the appropriate penalty for Rahman's actions, which involved financial gain, multiple victims, and elements of organised criminal activity. The case was heard in the relevant court, which applied principles of sentencing to determine the most suitable punishment.

The court was tasked with identifying and weighing various legal issues in determining Rahman's sentence. This included assessing the aggravating factors such as the financial gain obtained through his criminal activities, the number of victims affected, and the organised nature of the crime. Conversely, the court also considered mitigating factors, including Rahman's plea of guilty, his potential for rehabilitation, and the likelihood of reoffending. The court was required to balance these factors with general sentencing principles, such as parity with co-offenders, the need for deterrence, and the objective seriousness of the offence.

In its reasoning, the court meticulously examined the aggravating and mitigating factors. It found that the aggravating factors were significant due to the financial gain, the multiple victims, and the organised nature of the criminal activities. However, the court also acknowledged the mitigating factors, including Rahman's early guilty plea and his potential for rehabilitation. After considering all relevant factors, the court concluded that an intensive correction order was the most appropriate sentence, balancing the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court ordered that Rahman serve a term of imprisonment of 12 months, to be served by way of an intensive corrections order pursuant to section 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. This decision reflects the court's consideration of the overall circumstances and the principles of sentencing applicable in this case.

Orders

Orders of the court

A term of imprisonment of 12 months, to be served by way of an intensive corrections orders pursuant to s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999: at [38].

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Rahman [2019] NSWDC 868
Hearing dates:	06 December 2019
Date of orders:	06 December 2019
Decision date:	06 December 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	A term of imprisonment of 12 months, to be served by way of an intensive corrections orders pursuant to s 7(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999: at [38].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Penalties — Intensive correction orders SENTENCING — Aggravating factors — Financial gain — Multiple victims — Planned or organised criminal activity — General principles SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Rehabilitation — Plea of guilty — Unlikely to re-offend SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Co-offenders — Parity — Delay — Deterrence — Objective seriousness — Sentencing statistics
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Johnston v R [2017] NSWCCA 5 Kemp v R [2012] NSWCCA 281 Lee v R [2019] NSWCCA 15 R v Blanco (1999) 106 A Crim R 303 R v Islam; R v Ahmed [2019] NSWDC 546 R v Yeoh; R v Mohammed; R v Zhang; R v Lee [2018] NSWDC 201 Thangavelautham v R [2016] NSWCCA 141
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Syed Rahman (Offender)
Representation:	Mr D Waldmann (Solicitor Advocate for the Crown) Mr M Pickin (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s):	2018/27691