AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 7 September 2021

R v Craig

[2021] NSWDC 465

DrugsFraud & dishonestyPublic order & justice offences
CRIME SENTENCING UNCONTROVERSIAL NO ISSUE OF PRINCIPLE

Citation: R v Craig [2021] NSWDC 465
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 7 September 2021
Judge: Wilson SC DCJ

Background

The offender, a woman aged 38 at the time of sentencing, faced three charges arising from her peripheral involvement in events connected to a contract killing carried out by her brother. Her brother had been recruited into Brothers for Life, a criminal organisation, and was engaged to murder a 15-year-old boy, which he did in April 2017 by shooting the victim in the head as he lay in bed.

Following her brother's arrest, associates of the organisation sought to obtain a false affidavit from him to exculpate others involved in arranging the murder. The offender, as an approved prison contact for her brother, facilitated telephone calls between him and others. She also received $20,000 in cash on her brother's behalf, representing payment for the false affidavit, and then spent or distributed approximately $19,600 of those funds at his direction.

When summoned to appear before the NSW Crime Commission, the offender gave false or misleading evidence. A third, related charge concerned her knowing participation in the supply of 5.79 grams of methamphetamine.

  • The appropriate sentence for recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime under s 193B(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), carrying a maximum of 10 years imprisonment
  • The appropriate sentence for knowingly giving false or misleading evidence to the Crime Commission under s 27(1) of the Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW), carrying a maximum of 5 years imprisonment and/or a fine of $55,000
  • The appropriate sentence for knowingly taking part in the supply of a prohibited drug under s 25(1) of the Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), carrying a maximum of 2 years imprisonment
  • Whether the sentence should be served by full-time custody or by way of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO)

Decision

The District Court accepted that the offender's role in the proceeds of crime offence was largely passive. She received and distributed the $20,000 at her brother's direction, and there was no evidence she knew the money was payment for a false affidavit or that it was the proceeds of crime. Her recklessness, rather than knowledge, was the relevant mental element.

On the Crime Commission charge, the court found the offender had given false or misleading evidence after being properly warned about her obligations. The drug supply charge was a related matter dealt with on a s 166 certificate (a procedural mechanism allowing related charges to be taken into account at sentence without separate proceedings).

The offender had no prior criminal history and was entitled to a finding of good character. She received a 25% discount on sentence for her early guilty pleas in the Local Court. The court also took into account approximately seven months and one week already spent in custody on remand, as well as time on conditional bail.

Wilson SC DCJ concluded that full-time custody was less likely to reduce the risk of reoffending than a community-based order, given the offender's strong family bonds and the court's assessment of her reoffending risk as minimal to non-existent. The sentencing purposes set out in s 3A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) were addressed, and an ICO of 18 months was considered the appropriate disposition.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of all three offences
  • Sentenced to 18 months imprisonment, to be served by way of an Intensive Corrections Order (ICO) in the community
  • ICO commenced 7 September 2021 and expires 6 March 2023
  • Standard ICO conditions imposed: no further offences; submission to supervision by a community corrections officer
  • Additional conditions: participation in counselling or rehabilitation as directed; no contact or association with Bassam Hamzy, Torek Ayoub, Ali Abbas, or Abdul Rahman Abu Mahmoud
  • The offender was required to report to Blacktown Community Corrections within 48 hours

Key Takeaways

  • Parity between co-offenders does not arise where the charges against related offenders are sufficiently disparate and where no direct connection exists between those offenders and the index offending
  • A finding of good character remained available to the offender despite the serious nature of the surrounding circumstances, given her complete absence of prior criminal history
  • Under s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), full-time custody is only appropriate where no other sentence is suitable; here, the court determined that an ICO better addressed the purposes of sentencing given the offender's minimal reoffending risk
  • An early guilty plea in the Local Court attracted a 25% sentence discount, and pre-sentence custody was factored into the length of the ICO
  • The District Court treated the offender's largely passive facilitation of calls and her lack of knowledge about the specific purpose of the funds received as relevant mitigating features in calibrating the sentence

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 193B(3) (recklessly deal with proceeds of crime)
- Crime Commission Act 2012 (NSW) s 27(1) (knowingly give false or misleading evidence)
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A (purposes of sentencing), 5 (full-time detention as last resort)
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW) s 25(1) (supply of prohibited drug)

Cases: None cited in the judgment.