R v Sampathapillai - [2021] NSWDC 712

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sampathapillai [2021] NSWDC 712
Hearing dates: 30 July 2021; 25 August 2021
Date of orders: 25 August 2021
Decision date: 25 August 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:
An aggregate term of imprisonment of three years and 6 months with a non-parole period of two years: at [98].

Catchwords:
SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character — Rehabilitation — Unlikely to re-offend
SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Character of offence — Deterrence — Establishing relevant matters — Factual basis for sentence — General principles — Maximum penalty — Moral culpability — Multiple offences — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing
SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances

Legislation Cited:
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure)Act 1999

Cases Cited:
Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120
Ritter v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 121
Parente v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 284
Borg v R; Gray v R [2020] NSWCCA 67
R v McBride [2019] NSWDC 371
Bond v R [2020] NSWCCA 277
Sheather v R [2020] NSWCC 162
R v Turk [2020] NSWDC 400
R v Johnston [2019] NSWDC 901
R v Micah [2015] NSWDC 321
R v Newton [2020] NSWDC 806
R v Loudon [2020] NSWDC 57

Category: Sentence
Parties:
Regina (Office of the Director Public Prosecutions)
Umesh Sampathapillai (Offender)
Representation:
Mr G Porter (Crown Prosecutor, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions)
Mr M Fokkes (Counsel for the Offender)

File Number(s): 2020/130614; 2019/130523

Judgment

The offender, 34-year-old Dwayne Umesh Sampathapillai, is to be sentenced following jury verdicts of guilty on two counts on an indictment. The first count is an offence of ongoing supply contrary to s 25A(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with no standard non-parole period. The second count is an offence of supply prohibited drug in excess a commercial quantity, being 331.6 grams of cocaine, contrary to s 25(2) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years imprisonment with a standard non parole period of ten years.
The maximum penalties, and where applicable the standard non-parole period, are important yardsticks in the sentencing process which must take into account the purposes of sentencing set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure)Act 1999.
There is a related offence, sequence 2, to be dealt with on a s 166 certificate of speeding in excess of 10km/hour, which arises out of the facts led before the jury. I can indicate that sequence 2 will be dealt with pursuant to s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
H73423484: sequences 3, 4 and H76478277: sequences 2 – 9 are to be withdrawn at the conclusion of the sentence proceedings.
The offender was arrested on 27 April and served five days in custody before being released…

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 Sampathapillai

Details

AGLC: R v Sampathapillai [2021] NSWDC 712
Case: [2021] NSWDC 712
Decision Date: 25 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sampathapillai involved the sentencing of the defendant, Sampathapillai, who was convicted of multiple offences. The nature of the dispute was primarily concerned with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the various objectives of sentencing, including punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The case was heard in a higher court that had the jurisdiction to impose a significant custodial sentence.

The legal issues before the court included assessing the character and moral culpability of the offence, considering the defendant’s good character and potential for rehabilitation, and determining the appropriate length and non-parole period of the sentence. The court had to weigh the purposes of sentencing, including general and specific deterrence, while also taking into account the defendant's likelihood of re-offending and the objective seriousness of the crimes committed. The maximum penalty for the offences, alongside the factual basis for the sentence, were also critical considerations.

The court concluded that the defendant’s offences, while serious, were not of the highest moral culpability. It acknowledged the defendant's good character and the potential for rehabilitation, which were significant mitigating factors. The court determined that an aggregate term of imprisonment of three years and six months was appropriate, with a non-parole period of two years. This sentence aimed to achieve the dual purposes of punishment and deterrence, while also providing the defendant with an opportunity for rehabilitation. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach that considered both the seriousness of the offences and the individual circumstances of the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

An aggregate term of imprisonment of three years and 6 months with a non-parole period of two years: at [98].

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 Sampathapillai [2021] NSWDC 712
Hearing dates:	30 July 2021; 25 August 2021
Date of orders:	25 August 2021
Decision date:	25 August 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	M L Williams SC DCJ
Decision:	An aggregate term of imprisonment of three years and 6 months with a non-parole period of two years: at [98].
Catchwords:	SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Good character — Rehabilitation — Unlikely to re-offend SENTENCING — Penalties — Imprisonment SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Character of offence — Deterrence — Establishing relevant matters — Factual basis for sentence — General principles — Maximum penalty — Moral culpability — Multiple offences — Objective seriousness — Purposes of sentencing SENTENCING — Subjective considerations on sentence — Special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure)Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 Ritter v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 121 Parente v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 284 Borg v R; Gray v R [2020] NSWCCA 67 R v McBride [2019] NSWDC 371 Bond v R [2020] NSWCCA 277 Sheather v R [2020] NSWCC 162 R v Turk [2020] NSWDC 400 R v Johnston [2019] NSWDC 901 R v Micah [2015] NSWDC 321 R v Newton [2020] NSWDC 806 R v Loudon [2020] NSWDC 57
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Office of the Director Public Prosecutions) Umesh Sampathapillai (Offender)
Representation:	Mr G Porter (Crown Prosecutor, Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions) Mr M Fokkes (Counsel for the Offender)
File Number(s):	2020/130614; 2019/130523