District Court
New South Wales
- Amendment notes
Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sappideen [2018] NSWDC 238 Hearing dates: 02 February 2018 Date of orders: 02 February 2018 Decision date: 02 February 2018 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: M L Williams SC DCJ Decision: Full time custodial sentence of 12 years imposed with a non-parole period of 8 years. See [34].
Catchwords: SENTENCING — Offences – Dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception
SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Multiple offences — Aggregate sentences
SENTENCING — Penalties — ImprisonmentLegislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999Cases Cited: Cahyadi v The Queen (2007) 168 A Crim R 41
R v XX (2009) 195 A Crim R 38
Johnson v The Queen (2004) ALJR 616
Cowling v R [2015] NSWCCA 213
R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369Category: Sentence Parties: The Crown
Ishan Seenar SappideenRepresentation: Mr I Lloyd QC (Counsel for the Offender)
Ms P Smith (Crown Advocate)
File Number(s): 2014/96392; 2014/351208; 2015/177272; 2015/213082
Judgment
-
Ishan Sappideen defrauded his friends of about $4.6 million of which $3.6 million approximately remains missing and there is no evidence at all as to where it has gone or what he did with it. He is 37 years of age, and as Mr Lloyd QC accurately summarised his offending in submissions, he was a big noter who showed false trappings of wealth to people and befriended them, got them to invest large amounts of money and then told lies as to why their investments could not be repaid.
-
Some of the offences before the court today were committed while he was on parole and some were committed while he was on bail having been arrested for the earlier offences for which he stands for sentence today. When I say “on parole”, I refer to the fact that on 8 July 2005 His Honour Judge Bell imposed a sentence of eight years imprisonment with a five year and six months non-parole period to date from 12 May 2004 for a series of fraudulent offences, mostly of much less serious amounts of money than involved in the present case. At that time Bell DCJ said
“At the outset I stress that it is difficult to fully appreciate this young man’s confident presentation and his ability to express himself without actually seeing him. His skills in communication and presentation are of an order that would be the envy of many members of the legal procession”
-
His Honour went on to say,
“His conduct involved the presentation of himself as a person of importance. He utilised that presentation to obtain cash from his victims. The cash he obtained was in large measure spent by maintaining a lavish lifestyle. He then fraudulently dealt with funds by seeking to take them form the accounts of some of his victims and depositing them into account of other victims. His conduct raised much false expectation of profit in his victims, and that expectation was not only not realised but…
Continue reading R v Sappideen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Sappideen [2018] NSWDC 238
- Case
- [2018] NSWDC 238
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In addressing these issues, the court examined the principles of sentencing articulated in previous jurisprudence, particularly in relation to the aggregation of sentences for multiple offences. The court considered the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offences, to provide general and specific deterrence, and to uphold the community's sense of justice. The court also took into account the principle of proportionality, ensuring that the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the crimes committed. The court found that the offences were not only numerous but also involved significant planning and deceit, leading to substantial financial loss for the victims. As a result, the court determined that an aggregate sentence was appropriate.
The court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to meet the objectives of punishment and deterrence. After considering the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the defendant's previous criminal record and the absence of any significant mitigating circumstances, the court imposed a full-time custodial sentence of 12 years, with a non-parole period of 8 years. This decision was based on the cumulative impact of the offences, the need for significant punishment, and the imperative of protecting the community. The court's ruling provided clarity on the sentencing approach for similar cases involving multiple, serious offences of deception.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full time custodial sentence of 12 years imposed with a non-parole period of 8 years. See [34].
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.