R v Rasila - [2020] NZHC 964

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CRI-2019-004-5696

[2020] NZHC 964

THE QUEEN

v

SUNDEEP KILIP RASILA

Hearing: 12 May 2020

Appearances:

B Dickey for Crown

A J Holland for Mr Rasila

Judgment:

12 May 2020

SENTENCING REMARKS OF LANG J

Solicitors:
Crown Solicitor, Auckland

R v RASILA [2020] NZHC 964 [12 May 2020]

[1] Mr Rasila, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of corruptly accepting a bribe.1 The maximum penalty for that offence is seven years imprisonment. You originally faced another charge of using a document to obtain a pecuniary advantage. The Crown has offered no evidence on that charge and I now discharge you on it under s 147 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2011.

[2] You have applied to be discharged without conviction under s 106 of the Sentencing Act 2002 but for reasons I will give in writing later today I decline to grant that application. I do not consider you have established the direct and indirect consequences of conviction are out of all proportion to the overall gravity of your offending.

The offending

[3] The facts on which you are to be sentenced are contained in an agreed summary of facts. This reveals that you were employed by the Council as a procurement relationship specialist between June 2012 and 28 April 2016. This role required you to maintain the Council’s relationship with suppliers of goods and services and, in particular, office supplies.

[4] You and Mr Sunil Chand have been friends for a long time and at one stage both worked for the same employer. You also boarded with Mr Chand’s family for a period of approximately six years between 2005 and 2011. You then maintained your friendship with Mr Chand after you began working for the Council. During this period Mr Chand went on to establish his own commercial printing and office stationery supply company, On Time Print Finishers Limited (On Time Print).

[5] As part of its services, the Council supplies members of the public with property files for a fee. These contain information held by the Council that may be of interest to persons seeking to purchase or obtain information about properties in the Auckland area.

1 Crimes Act 1961, s 105(1).

[6] Up until 2015, the Council delivered its property files to recipients on compact discs. During that year the Council began investigating the possibility of delivering information to recipients on USB devices rather than compact discs. You were one of the Council’s staff members responsible for investigating the proposed transition to USB devices. Up until that time your role at the Council had focussed on the maintenance of the Council’s relationship with a single supplier of office products, a company called Staples Limited. Your involvement in the establishment of a new Council contract for the procurement for USB devices was therefore outside the normal course of your duties.

[7] You knew, however, from your involvement in the process…

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 Rasila

Details

AGLC: R v Rasila [2020] NZHC 964
Case: [2020] NZHC 964
Decision Date: 12 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rasila, the defendant, Sundeep Kilip Rasila, was convicted of accepting a bribe in his capacity as a procurement relationship specialist for the Council. The court heard that Rasila had accepted a bribe from a friend, Sunil Chand, to facilitate a contract for the supply of USB devices to the Council, resulting in the Council overpaying for the devices. The court also heard that Rasila had failed to disclose lower quotes from other suppliers and had received a payment of $7,500 for his role in the scheme.

The legal issues in this case were to determine the appropriate starting point for the sentence and to consider whether the sentence should be converted to one of home detention. The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case and ultimately decided on a starting point of 18 months imprisonment. However, taking into account the mitigating factors, including Rasila's genuine remorse and lack of previous convictions, the court determined that a sentence of imprisonment was not necessary. Instead, the court imposed a sentence of five and a half months home detention, subject to certain conditions.

The court's reasoning in this case was that, although the offending was serious, the sentencing purposes and principles of deterrence, denunciation and the need to hold Rasila accountable for his offending were adequately addressed by the conviction and a sentence of home detention. The court also noted that Rasila's previous good character, his remorse and the probability that he will not offend again meant that a sentence of imprisonment was not required.

In conclusion, Rasila was sentenced to five and a half months home detention, subject to certain conditions, for his role in accepting a bribe in his capacity as a procurement relationship specialist for the Council. The court considered the aggravating and mitigating factors of the case and ultimately decided that a sentence of home detention was appropriate.

Orders