Legal Research
Cases
R v Sukkar

R v Sukkar

Case [2005] NSWCCA 55 19 May 2005

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:
Regina v Louis Anthony SUKKAR [2005] NSWCCA 55

HEARING DATE(S): 14/02/2005

JUDGMENT DATE:

19 May 2005

JUDGMENT OF:
Bryson JA at 1; Barr J at 57; Hoeben J at 58

DECISION:
(1) Leave to appeal granted; (2) Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - appeal by offender against sentence - convicted on plea of guilty - Customs Act s.233B(1)(d) knowingly concerned in importation of commercial quantity of MDMA (ecstacy) 34.4kg in 480,000 tablets - offence of possession of trafficable quantity 52.1 grams taken into account - 18 years, non-parole 12 years - no prior connections - consideration of - nature of participation of applicant and place in heirarchy compared to other participants - statement of reasons for fact finding where applicant gave evidence - discount for plea of guilty - discount for offer of assistance which prosecuting authorities did not accept because regarded as unreliable - parity - severity - sentence affirmed.

LEGISLATION CITED:

Customs Act 1901; s 233B(1)(ca); s235(2)(c)
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW); subs.25(2)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth); s.16A(1); s 16BA; s 16G

CASES CITED:
Pettitt v. Dunkley [1971] 1 NSWLR 376
R v. Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v. Wai Thung Chu (NSWCCA, 16 October 1998, unreported)
Soulemezis v. Dudley (Holdings) Pty Ltd (1987) 10 NSWLR 247
Beale v Government Insurance Office of New South Wales (1997) 48 NSWLR 430
R v. Lawson (NSWCCA, 12 December 1997, unreported)
Gallagher v R (1991) 23 NSWLR 220

PARTIES:
Louis Anthony Sukkar - Applicant
Crown - Respondent

FILE NUMBER(S):
CCA 2004/2457

COUNSEL:
A.J. Bellanto QC & K. Traill - Applicant
B. Levet - Crown

SOLICITORS:
Uther Webster & Evans - Applicant
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
02/11/0888

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Andrew A/DCJ

2457/04

BRYSON JA
BARR J
HOEBEN J
THURSDAY 19 MAY 2005

Louis Anthony SUKKAR v THE QUEEN

Judgment

1 BRYSON JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him on 11 March 2004 by his Honour Acting Judge Andrew in the District Court at Sydney. The applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty to a charge under s233B(1)(d) of the Customs Act 1901 (Cth) that between about 1 March 2001 and 5 December 2001 he was knowingly concerned in the importation of a commercial quantity of MDMA, an amphetamine compound referred to as ecstasy and chemically named 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine. The maximum penalty prescribed for the offence, relating to a commercial quantity of MDMA is a fine not exceeding $750,000 or imprisonment for life or both; see s235(2)(c) of the Customs Act 1901. The quantity imported was 34.4 kilograms of pure MDMA compounded in about 480,000 tablets. The applicant was arrested on 5 December 2001 and has remained in custody since then. He was sentenced to eighteen years imprisonment with a non-parole period of twelve years, and the sentence was backdated to commence on 5 December 2001.

2 The Grounds of Appeal were these:

Ground 1
His…

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 Sukkar

Details

AGLC: Regina v Louis Anthony Sukkar [2005] NSWCCA 55
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 55
Decision Date: 19 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was an appeal by the offender against the sentence imposed following a guilty plea to a charge under the Customs Act. The applicant, having pleaded guilty to knowingly being concerned in the importation of a commercial quantity of MDMA (ecstasy), consisting of 34.4kg in 480,000 tablets, was sentenced to 18 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 years. The offence of possession of a trafficable quantity of 52.1 grams was also taken into account. The court was required to consider the nature of the applicant's participation, their place in the hierarchy compared to other participants, and whether any discounts should be applied for the plea of guilty or for the offer of assistance that was deemed unreliable by the prosecuting authorities.

In assessing the sentence, the court examined the applicant's level of involvement and compared it with other participants, alongside the statutory requirements and sentencing principles. The court also considered the discount for the plea of guilty and the rejected offer of assistance. The court determined that the sentence was appropriate and proportionate to the severity of the crime and the role played by the applicant. It was held that the sentence should be affirmed given the circumstances and the need for parity with other similar cases.

The court, after thorough deliberation, affirmed the sentence imposed on the applicant. The decision underscored the importance of considering the nature of the offender's participation, the hierarchy within the criminal operation, and the statutory sentencing guidelines in crafting an appropriate punishment. The court's affirmation of the sentence reflects a balanced approach to justice, taking into account the plea of guilty and the rejected offer of assistance.

Orders