District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Saab [2025] NSWDC 123 Hearing dates: 25 June, 13 September, 6 December 2024 Decision date: 04 April 2025 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Colefax SC DCJ Decision: For sequences 1, 2, and 3 (Commonwealth offences), an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years to date from today and to be served by means of an intensive corrections order.
For sequence 4 (State offence), a term of imprisonment of 2 years to date from today and to be served by means of a (separate) intensive corrections order.
Catchwords: CRIMES - SENTENCE - providing personal identification information with the intention it would be used to commit, or facilitating the commission of, the offence of obtaining a financial advantage from a government entity by deception - assisting the commission of the offence of, by a deception, dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage from Services Australia by supplying personal identification information - assisting the commission of the offence of receiving money reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime - misconduct in a public office.
Legislation Cited: Commonwealth Criminal Code: ss 372.1A(1), 134.2(1), 11.2(1), 400.9(1A); Crimes Act 1914 (C’th): ss 16A(2AAA), 16A, 20AB; s66 of the Crimes (Sentencing and Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Merheb v R [2024] NSWCCA 145; Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194, Vamadevan v The King [2024] NSWCCA 223, Stanley v DPP [2023] HCA 3
Category: Sentence Parties: Rex (Crown)
Selina Saab (Offender)Representation: Mr Jordan (Commonwealth Crown Prosecutor)
Mr Karim, later Mr Lloyd KC with Mr Karim, later Mr Lloyd KC (for the offender)
File Number(s): 2023/325254; 2024/99824 Publication restriction: Nil
JUDGMENT
-
Selina Saab, you appear for sentence today in relation to the following four offences.
-
First, one contravention of s372.1A(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code (“sequence 1”). The maximum penalty for sequence 1 is imprisonment for 5 years.
-
Secondly, one contravention of the combined operation of sections 134.2(1) and 11.2(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code (“sequence 2”). The maximum penalty for sequence 2 is imprisonment for 10 years.
-
Thirdly, one contravention of the combined operation of sections 400.9(1A) and 11.2(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code (“sequence 3”). The maximum penalty for sequence 3 is imprisonment for 2 years.
-
Fourthly, one (NSW) common law offence of misconduct in a public office (“the common law offence”). The penalty for the common law offence is at large. Nevertheless, the Crown fairly conceded in [64] of the document entitled “Outline of Crown Submissions on Sentence” that “…the reference point for the NSW common law offence is less than 7 years.”
-
Between 1 March 2021 and 8 November 2021, you worked as a customer concierge operator for Service NSW.
-
In that role, you had access to important personal identification information held by Service NSW including names, addresses, dates of birth, driver’s licence numbers, and passport numbers.
-
Between July and November 2021, you assisted Mr Salim Merheb to make claims to…
Continue reading R v Saab
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Saab [2025] NSWDC 123
- Case
- [2025] NSWDC 123
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentencing approach for these serious offences, the need to ensure the sentence reflected the gravity of the crimes, and the eligibility of the respondent for an intensive corrections order. The court had to weigh the aggravating and mitigating factors, such as the respondent's role in the offences, their previous criminal record, and their prospects for rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the intensive corrections orders could be served concurrently or separately.
The court determined that the respondent's actions were highly premeditated and involved significant deceit, which warranted a substantial custodial sentence. However, the court recognised the respondent's potential for rehabilitation and their willingness to participate in an intensive corrections order. It was held that an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years for the Commonwealth offences and a term of 2 years for the State offence would be appropriate. These sentences were to be served by means of separate intensive corrections orders. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and rehabilitation in its sentencing decision.
The court ordered that the sentences for the Commonwealth offences and the State offence were to commence from the date of the judgment and be served by separate intensive corrections orders. The respondent was to begin their rehabilitation program immediately, and compliance with the terms of the orders was mandatory.
Orders
Orders of the court
For sequences 1, 2, and 3 (Commonwealth offences), an aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years to date from today and to be served by means of an intensive corrections order.
For sequence 4 (State offence), a term of imprisonment of 2 years to date from today and to be served by means of a (separate) intensive corrections order.
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.