R v Dutt

[2024] NZHC 3793

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CRI-2022-085-002285

[2024] NZHC 3793

THE KING

v

ABHINAV SINGH DUTT

Hearing:

11 December 2024

Counsel:

T Jenkin for Crown

B Dawson for Defendant

Sentencing:

11 December 2024

SENTENCING REMARKS OF GRAU J

[1]        Mr Dutt I have to sentence you today after you pleaded guilty to seven representative charges of receiving items that were valued over $1,000.1

[2]        You accepted a sentence indication that Radich J gave you back in September. Justice Radich indicated that the starting point for your sentence would be two years and five months’ imprisonment, that you would get a reduction of 25 per cent for pleading guilty, a 10 per cent reduction for your lack of previous convictions, and there was the possibility of additional reductions. Applying the reductions that Radich J had indicated, he said that the end sentence was 18 months’ imprisonment, there was the potential of a non-custodial sentence, and the Crown were not opposing that.

1      Crimes Act 1961, ss 246, 247(a) and 66(1), maximum penalty of seven years’ imprisonment.

R v DUTT (SENTENCING) [2024] NZHC 3793 [11 December 2024]

[3]        Some of the other co-offenders have already been sentenced. Mr Soon was sentenced by Radich J. His sentence was three years and 10 months’ imprisonment. I sentenced two other people yesterday. I sentenced Mr Perera to three months’ community detention and 50 hours’ community work, and I declined his application to be discharged without conviction. He was in a similar position to you in terms of the role he played in this offending, but his culpability was slightly less than yours. Ms Toki, who was one of the most significant suppliers of stolen property to Mr Soon was sentenced to 12 months’ home detention and 100 hours of community work.

[4]        It is usual for the Judge who has given the sentence indication to carry on to do the sentencing, but that is not inevitable. Although Radich J’s indication is not binding on me, I am conducting your sentencing on the basis that I agree with the sentence and reductions that Radich J indicated to you, so I am not departing from them.

[5]        The only thing I need to decide today is what further reductions can be made, and what the end sentence should be. First, I need to give a brief summary of the offending.

The offending

[6]        These charges came out of a Police operation in 2022 that targeted a large-scale receiving operation in Wellington run by Mr Soon. People would contact him and offer him stolen goods for sale. They were people who had either stolen these goods or had themselves received them from other people. Mr Soon would also give people lists of goods he wanted to have, on the basis that property would be stolen or shoplifted to order. Mr Soon had connections throughout Wellington. The core of his network included people like yourself; tenants at his properties. The stolen property included items such as bicycles, power tools, building materials, whiteware and electronics.

[7]        You were working as an electrician in Wellington at the time. You and your (then) partner were Mr Soon and Ms Eng’s tenants at their home in Newlands. And you had worked for Mr Soon doing electrical work for him on his rental properties.

[8]        You sold stolen property that Mr Soon gave you for that purpose. You used various fake names on Trademe and Facebook Marketplace and you sold roughly

$15,000 worth of stolen property online on behalf of Mr Soon. You also gave advice to Mr Soon about the resale value of stolen property before Mr Soon purchased it, and you were responsible for organising property that was stored at various locations. You were seen in Mr Soon’s vehicles transporting stolen items to storage locations, loading it into lockers and shifting property between lockers at storage facilities. When you were arrested, you were driving a vehicle that contained around $10,000 worth of stolen property that Mr Soon had given you.

[9]The total property recovered by Police in this operation was valued at almost

$3 million.

[10]      Your offending began in May 2022 and continued for around four-and-a-half months. The charges that you have pleaded to relate to:

(a)a representative charge for receiving that concerns the stolen property found at the address in your bedroom that was valued at $6,334. It included power tools and personal electronics that were stored in your room;

(b)the second representative charge relates to another Newlands property where Police recovered some $64,755 worth of stolen property;

(c)the third representative charge relates to a Khandallah property. There was $98,000 worth of property there, mainly in the garage. You had visited that property, delivering and removing items from the garage on a number of occasions; and

(d)the four representative charges relate to property that Police found at four storage units in a facility where you delivered and removed items from the units. The value of the stolen property recovered from those four storage units was around $479,000.

Sentence indication

[11]      Justice Radich considered that your level of culpability was in a mid-range. He took into account the large and commercial nature of Mr Soon’s operation, and the value of the goods recovered that were connected to your actions; around $1.2 million. There was also that you sold around $15,000 worth of stolen property on Mr Soon’s behalf.

[12]      His Honour, though, saw your  role  as  quite  different  to  Ms  Toki’s  and Mr Youkhana’s, and it was very different to Mr Soon’s. Unlike them, you did not benefit directly from the property you sold, and you did not have property stolen to order. You  were  acting  on  instructions.  You  were  not  acting  pro-actively.  Justice Radich described you as an important assistant to Mr Soon, providing a way in which he was able to profit from his receiving operation. Clearly, there were many victims of the offending.

[13]      Accordingly, after considering a number of sentencing authorities, Radich J adopted a starting point of two years and five months’ imprisonment, after describing your offending as having similar features to another case, R v Lasike.2

[14]      As has been discussed, Radich J said you would receive a reduction of 25 per cent if you pleaded guilty, and a potential good character reduction of 10 per cent, on the information that his Honour had at the time.

Submissions

[15]      The Crown has acknowledged that your willingness to engage in restorative justice and your offer to pay reparation can be considered. The Crown also acknowledges that a sentence other than imprisonment is available and appropriate for you. The Crown says that community detention, combined with community work, would be the appropriate sentence; not supervision as the pre-sentence report recommends, because you do not meet the criteria for any programmes.

2      R v Lasike, High Court Auckland CRI-2004-044-7103, 7 September 2006.

[16]      Mr Dawson also says that community detention is appropriate for you, but he says community work or home detention, would interfere with your work as an electrician because that involves irregular hours at multiple locations.

[17]      Mr Blake points out that you were determined to engage in restorative justice, despite the limited time that was available, and despite opposition from the Crown and the Court. One conference has proceeded, you are willing to continue this process even after you are sentenced, and intend to make yourself available if any other victims are able to (and willing to), meet with you. You paid $400 to the victim that you met and discussed your offending with. You were willing to make other payments but it is agreed by the Crown (and Mr Dawson and the Court) that is not realistic or practicable.

[18]      There have been two victim impact statements shown to you and that has led to apology letters that can be provided to them. Mr Dawson also mentions that you offered to assist Police to try to recover stolen property. Also a large number of character references have been provided for you.

Information available at sentencing

[19]      I now have a pre-sentence report, a restorative justice report, and the character references and apology letters.

[20]      The pre-sentence report talks about you having poor problem-solving abilities and anti-social associates.

[21]      I want to refer to the restorative justice report. That is positive and significant. It is no easy thing for an offender to face a victim directly and hear about the impact that your offending has had on them. You apologised, your apology was accepted, and the meeting finished with a handshake. During the meeting you asked if there was anything you could do and the victim responded that you could pay for repairs for his bike. You agreed to that and you have paid it.

[22]      Having read your apologies to two other victims, I do consider that your remorse for your involvement in this offending is genuine. And it looks to me that you have done your best to make amends.

[23]      It is also evident, from the large number of character references that have been filed for you, that this offending, although it went on for a few months, is a lapse. It is a very significant lapse, but by a person who has otherwise shown himself to be reliable, responsible, hardworking and supportive to friends and people in your community. You are involved in your Sikh community, you have been charitable as well, and you financially support your family.

Further reduction for good character and remorse

[24]      I am prepared to reduce the sentence by a further five per cent to reflect that your good character has been demonstrated as going well beyond just a lack of previous convictions. What I have seen demonstrates that this offending really does seem to have been out of character for you. I do not reduce the sentence any further because you already had a 10 per cent reduction and I do keep in mind that this offending was not a one-off but continued over a number of months.

[25]      I am also prepared to make a reduction of 10 per cent to reflect your remorse, your participation in restorative justice, your offers to make amends, and the amends that you have been able to make. You have done what you can to make things right and that does demonstrate your remorse is genuine.

Sentence

[26]      So, as I have said, the starting point was two years and five months’ imprisonment. There is a 25 per cent reduction for pleading guilty, 15 per cent for good character, 10 per cent for remorse. Those reductions take 14-and-a-half months off the starting point, leading to an end sentence of 14-and-a-half months’ imprisonment. Because that is under two years, I can look at alternatives to imprisonment and everyone agrees it is appropriate that you receive a sentence in the community.

[27]      I agree that community detention is the appropriate sentence for you Mr Dutt, to reflect the purposes and principles of sentencing, particularly to hold you accountable. In my view, it is also the least restrictive outcome that is appropriate in the circumstances. I do not consider that community work is warranted on top of that,

or a fine. You will be on a detention, a curfew every night for the next six months, and in my view, that is sufficient to mark your offending in this matter. The reason that I do not impose community work is because you are working hard, and community work would be difficult given the nature of your work, the hours, and that you work in multiple different locations.

[28]      That means Mr Dutt your sentence will be six months’ community detention. You will serve that at the curfew address that is set out in the pre-sentence report. Your curfew is between 8:30pm to 6:30am and it will begin today.

Grau J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Wellington