Legal Research
Cases
R v Sulaiman

R v Sulaiman

Case [2025] NSWDC 415 20 October 2025

Mens Rea & Intention

Sentencing

Intensive Correction Order

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Sulaiman [2025] NSWDC 415
Hearing dates: 2 October 2025
Date of orders: 20 October 2025
Decision date: 20 October 2025
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:
For orders see [121]

Catchwords:
SENTENCE – Dishonestly obtain financial advantage or cause financial disadvantage by deception – Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime – Aggregate sentence – Intensive Correction Order

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases Cited:
Badaric v R [2025] NSWCCA 117
Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1
Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169
Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28
Matthews v R [2018] NSWCCA 186
Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73
O’Dwyer v R [2025] NSWCCA 95
R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510
R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346
R v Shortland [2018] NSWCCA 34
R v Talia [2009] VSCA 267
R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21
Wanstall v R [2024] NSWCCA 167
YZ v R [2025] NSWCCA 165

Category: Sentence
Parties: Qartullah Sulaiman (The offender)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (The Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr C Parkin (The offender)
Solicitors:
Mr J Ahmadi (The offender)
Ms C Strati (The Crown)

File Number(s): 2023/00356422
Publication restriction: Nil

REMARKS ON SENTENCE

The offender was born in Afghanistan in 1989 and came to Australia in 1999. He is to be sentenced in respect of the following two offences:-

Sequence 1 – Dishonestly obtain financial advantage or cause financial disadvantage by deception, an offence pursuant to s192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) (“the CA”). The maximum penalty prescribed is 10 years imprisonment and there is no standard non-parole period.
Sequence 3 – Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime, an offence pursuant to s193B(2) of the CA. The maximum penalty prescribed for that offence is 15 years imprisonment.

The offender has also admitted his guilt and asked for a further offence to be taken into account on a Form 1 attached to sequence 1. That offence is as follows:-

Sequence 2 – Offence that he caused an unauthorised computer function, namely deleting 1,396 records on Telstra ordering and billing systems, knowing that function to be unauthorised and with intent to commit the commission of a serious indictable offence, namely fraud, by him.

The offending took place between 1 March 2022 and 22 September 2023. The offender was arrested on 9 November 2023 and has been on bail since then.

The sentence hearing

The sentence hearing took place on 2 October 2025. The Crown Sentence Summary became Exhibit A, and it included a Statement of Agreed Facts which may be summarised as follows.
Between 1 March 2022 and…

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 Sulaiman

Details

AGLC: R v Sulaiman [2025] NSWDC 415
Case: [2025] NSWDC 415
Decision Date: 20 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Sulaiman was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the defendant, Sulaiman, faced charges relating to obtaining a financial advantage by deception and dealing with the proceeds of crime. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Sulaiman, who had pleaded guilty to multiple charges. The prosecution argued for a significant custodial sentence, citing the severity and frequency of the offences, while the defence sought a more lenient approach, emphasising Sulaiman’s background and potential for rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court included the calculation of an aggregate sentence for the multiple offences and the consideration of an intensive correction order as an alternative to imprisonment. The court had to weigh the principles of denunciation and deterrence against the rehabilitative potential of an intensive correction order. It was also necessary to consider the impact of the offences on the victims and the community, as well as Sulaiman's personal circumstances, including his background and prospects for rehabilitation.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that while the offences were serious and demonstrated a pattern of dishonest behaviour, there were mitigating factors that warranted consideration of an alternative to imprisonment. The court was persuaded by evidence of Sulaiman’s remorse, his limited criminal history, and the potential for an intensive correction order to address the underlying issues that led to his offending behaviour. After considering all the circumstances, the court determined that an intensive correction order was the appropriate sentence, aiming to balance the need for punishment with the opportunity for rehabilitation.

The final orders included a sentence of imprisonment to be served concurrently with an intensive correction order, reflecting the court's balanced approach to sentencing. The order also detailed specific conditions that Sulaiman must adhere to as part of the intensive correction order, aimed at ensuring his rehabilitation and preventing reoffending.

Orders

Orders of the court

For orders see [121]

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Sulaiman [2025] NSWDC 415

Cases citing this decision · 0 of 0 shown

No citing cases yet.

Cases cited in this decision · 24 of 24 shown

Badaric v The King
[2025] NSWCCA 117 Para 108

…The Court of Criminal Appeal decision in Badaric v R [2025] NSWCCA 117 informs the correct approach to sentencing for related fraud and proceeds of crime offences. Sweeney J held at [76] that the authorities establish that “where a person is to be sentenced for overlapping offending of dealing with proceeds of his o…
O'Dwyer v The King
[2025] NSWCCA 95 Para 99

…by Telstra, part of the loss was irretrievable. This is a matter that may increase the objective seriousness of a fraud offence – see O’Dwyer v R [2025] NSWCCA 95 at [56]. I find that the offending fell within the mid-range for an offence pursuant to s192E(1)(b) of the CA.…
Wanstall v The King
[2024] NSWCCA 167 Para 115

…. The loss of the offender’s employment by Telstra does not amount to extra-curial punishment to be taken into account on sentence. In Wanstall v R [2024] NSWCCA 167, Sweeney J (with whom Stern JA and Cavanagh J agreed) dealt with a divergence of views in appellate courts about the significance of the loss of an off…
Hoskins v R
[2021] NSWCCA 169 Para 110

…en back to Afghanistan before he was rescued by his mother and brought to Australia. Such deprivation does not have to be profound (see Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169, per Brereton JA) however the High Court of Australia held in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 as follows:-…
Moiler v R
[2021] NSWCCA 73 Para 82

…r (severe and reoccurring) made by Mr Watson-Munro, counsel submitted that the principles in De La Rosa should be applied here, relying on Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73, where the Court distinguished between material contribution to the offending and direct causation of it. Counsel referred to Mr Watson-Munro’s opini…
R v Holder
[2019] SASCFC 73

…"[228] Street CJ described the principle of totality in sentencing in R v Holder; R v Johnstone (1983) 3 NSWLR 245 at 260 as follows: “There is no general rule that determines whether sentences ought to be imposed concurrently or consecutively. The issue is determined by the application of the principle of totality o…
Matthews v The Queen; New v The Queen
[2018] NSWCCA 186 Para 83

…sult of it. If the Court did not find exceptional circumstances, this hardship could still be taken into account, relying on Matthews v R [2018] NSWCCA 186 at [33].…
R v Shortland
[2018] NSWCCA 34 Para 65

…mily would not constitute exceptional hardship referring to long established authority including R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510 and R v Shortland [2018] NSWCCA 34. The Crown acknowledged that in the event that such hardship did not amount to exceptional hardship then it could still be taken into account on sent…
Kearsley v R
[2017] NSWCCA 28

…41 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169 Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28 Matthews v R [2018] NSWCCA 186 Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73 O’Dwyer v R [2025] NSWCCA 95 R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v…
Hoskins v R
[2016] NSWCCA 157 Para 63

…See also Hoskins v R [2016] NSWCCA 157 at [63] where this passage was quoted with approval.…
R v Van Ryn
[2016] NSWCCA 1 Para 117

…rinciple of totality in criminality. Any aggregate sentence must be "just and appropriate" to the totality of the offending behaviour. In R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1, the Court of Criminal Appeal had regard to the following summary of the correct approach to the assessment of sentence for multiple offences, with p…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 110

…be profound (see Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169, per Brereton JA) however the High Court of Australia held in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 as follows:-…
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa
[2010] NSWCCA 194 Para 63

…the offender’s mental health issues may diminish the moral culpability for his offending in accordance with the principle in DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1. The Crown submitted that the Court would not accept Mr Watson-Munro’s opinion that the offender’s mental health materially contributed to his offendin…
R v HJM
[2009] VSCA 267 Para 115

…ing, referring to the High Court of Australia’s decision in Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21. Sweeney J referred to R v Talia [2009] VSCA 267 where the Victorian Court of Appeal accepted that disqualification from an offender’s chosen profession constitutes extra-curial punishment, “although the…
R v Henry
[2007] NSWCCA 90 Para 43

…66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. It may also have the consequence that an offender is an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence resulting in a reduction in the sentenc…
Cahyadi v R
[2007] NSWCCA 1 Para 118

…public confidence in the administration of justice when sentencing for multiple offences, and also referred to the judgment of Howie J in Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 at [27]:…
R v Pearson
[2004] NSWCCA 129 Para 51

…t [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. It may also have the consequence that an offender is an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence resulti…
Ryan v The Queen
[2001] HCA 21 Para 115

…of the loss of an offender’s career in sentencing, referring to the High Court of Australia’s decision in Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21. Sweeney J referred to R v Talia [2009] VSCA 267 where the Victorian Court of Appeal accepted that disqualification from an offender’s chosen profession co…
Dinsdale v The Queen
[2000] HCA 54 Para 113

…subjective considerations must not cause inadequate weight to be given to the objective circumstances, in Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54, Kirby J said at [68]:-…
Miller v R
[1999] WASCA 66 Para 254

…uently the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCCA 111 Para 254

…e offender's moral culpability may be reduced. Consequently the need to denounce the crime may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [2…
R v Jiminez
[1999] WASCA 7 Para 23

…may be reduced with a reduction in the sentence: R v Henry [1999] NSWCCA 111; 46 NSWLR 346 at [254]; Miller v R [1999] WASCA 66 at [23]; R v Jiminez [1999] WASCA 7 at [23], [25]; Tsiaras at 400; Lauritsen at [51]; Israil at [23]; R v Pearson [2004] NSWCCA 129 at [43]; Henry [2007] NSWCCA 90 at [28]. It may also…
R v Henry
[1999] NSWCA 111 Para 83

…Relying on R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346, counsel submitted that the offender’s mental health condition and its contributing role to the offending rendered him an inappropriate vehicle for general deterrence. Further his experience in custody would no doubt be made worse by the knowledge of hardship that would be suff…
[2025] NSWCCA 165
[2025] NSWCCA 165

…Talia [2009] VSCA 267 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21 Wanstall v R [2024] NSWCCA 167 YZ v R [2025] NSWCCA 165 Category: Sentence Parties: Qartullah Sulaiman (The offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (The Crown) Representation: Counsel: Mr C Parkin (The offen…

Legislation cited in this decision · 2

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
1 mention (from Para 52)
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Sulaiman [2025] NSWDC 415
Hearing dates:	2 October 2025
Date of orders:	20 October 2025
Decision date:	20 October 2025
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Mahony SC DCJ
Decision:	For orders see [121]
Catchwords:	SENTENCE – Dishonestly obtain financial advantage or cause financial disadvantage by deception – Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime – Aggregate sentence – Intensive Correction Order
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Badaric v R [2025] NSWCCA 117 Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1 Hoskins v R [2021] NSWCCA 169 Kearsley v R [2017] NSWCCA 28 Matthews v R [2018] NSWCCA 186 Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73 O’Dwyer v R [2025] NSWCCA 95 R v Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510 R v Henry (1999) 46 NSWLR 346 R v Shortland [2018] NSWCCA 34 R v Talia [2009] VSCA 267 R v Van Ryn [2016] NSWCCA 1 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21 Wanstall v R [2024] NSWCCA 167 YZ v R [2025] NSWCCA 165
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Qartullah Sulaiman (The offender) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (The Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr C Parkin (The offender) Solicitors: Mr J Ahmadi (The offender) Ms C Strati (The Crown)
File Number(s):	2023/00356422
Publication restriction:	Nil