SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Vilayur (No 3) |
Citation: | [2024] ACTSC 132 |
Hearing Date: | 1 May 2024 |
Decision Date: | 2 May 2024 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | 1. On the charge of conspiracy to dishonestly obtain a gain from a Commonwealth entity (CAN 6995/2020), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for three years and four months commencing on 30 April 2024 and ending on 29 August 2027. 2. The sentence is to be served by intensive correction in the community with the additional condition that the offender is to perform 300 hours of community service within that time. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – conspiracy to dishonestly obtain a gain from a Commonwealth entity – offender participated in scheme to influence government procurement process for contractors – lack of remorse – need for parity with sentences of co-offenders – sentence of three years and four months’ imprisonment to be served by intensive correction |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 20AB Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 11(3) Criminal Code (Cth), s 135.4 Public Interest Disclosure Act 2013 (Cth) |
Cases Cited: | Calatzis v Jones [2024] ACTSC 42 Cranfield v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 3 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606 R v El-Debel; R v Kahlon (No 5) [2022] ACTSC 152 R v El-Debel; R v Kahlon (No 7) [2022] ACTSC 313 R v Nicholas; R v Palmer [2019] ACTCA 36 |
Parties: | The King Gopalakrishnan Vilayur ( Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel D Staehli SC and J Nottle ( Crown) M Keaney ( Offender) |
| Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ( Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 95 of 2021 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
1․On 5 March 2024, Gopalakrishnan Vilayur pleaded guilty to the offence of conspiracy to dishonestly obtain a gain from a Commonwealth entity, contrary to s 135.4(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (CAN 6995/2020). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.
2․Section 135.4(1) provides that a person commits an offence if the person conspires with another person with the intention of dishonestly obtaining a gain from a Commonwealth entity. In order for the offence to have been committed:
(a)the person must have entered into an agreement with one or more other persons;
(b)the person and at least one other party to the agreement must have intended to do the thing pursuant to the agreement; and
(c)the person or at least one other party to the agreement must have committed an overt act pursuant to the agreement: s 135.4(9).
Facts
3․The facts are set out in an Agreed Statement of Facts tendered by the prosecution. The offender and his two co-offenders, Raminder Kahlon and Abdul El-Debel, collectively referred to as “the conspirators”, all worked in the Service Delivery Office (SDO), which was part of the Shared Services…
Continue reading R v Vilayur (No 3)
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Vilayur (No 3) [2024] ACTSC 132
- Case
- [2024] ACTSC 132
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In addressing these issues, the court meticulously evaluated the appellant's role in the conspiracy, the extent of their involvement, and the potential impact of their actions on the integrity of the government procurement process. The court also considered the appellant's lack of remorse, which was highlighted as a significant factor in determining the appropriate level of punishment. Additionally, the court emphasised the importance of achieving parity with sentences imposed on co-offenders to maintain consistency and fairness within the criminal justice system. Ultimately, the court concluded that a sentence of three years and four months’ imprisonment, to be served by intensive correction in the community with an additional condition of 300 hours of community service, was the most appropriate course of action.
The court's reasoning was grounded in a thorough analysis of the appellant's culpability, the seriousness of the offence, and the broader implications of the criminal activity. By opting for a sentence of intensive correction, the court aimed to balance the need for punishment with the potential benefits of rehabilitation and reintegration into the community. The inclusion of community service was intended to further underscore the appellant's responsibility and provide an opportunity for them to make amends for their actions. The court's decision was thus a carefully considered response to the complex legal issues presented by the case, reflecting a balanced approach to justice and rehabilitation.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. On the charge of conspiracy to dishonestly obtain a gain from a Commonwealth entity (CAN 6995/2020), the offender is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for three years and four months commencing on 30 April 2024 and ending on 29 August 2027.
2. The sentence is to be served by intensive correction in the community with the additional condition that the offender is to perform 300 hours of community service within that time.
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.