Citation: R v Omsivapirahasham and Perinparasa [2024] NSWDC 209
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 22 April 2024
Judge: Bourke SC DCJ
Background
Two offenders, referred to in the judgment as Mr P and Mr O, each pleaded guilty to conspiring with others to import a border-controlled precursor, namely pseudoephedrine, in a commercial quantity, contrary to ss 11.5 and 307.11(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years imprisonment.
The conspiracy operated between May and November 2021. Mr P acted as a coordinator, receiving consignments at various addresses, providing names and locations to overseas senders, and sending back confirmation videos showing packages being unpacked to reveal concealed pseudoephedrine. Mr O appeared in several of those videos actively deconstructing consignments.
Both offenders, along with a third person named Logendran, were arrested on 11 November 2021 outside a Parramatta newsagency after attending to collect a consignment. That package had been intercepted by police, who removed 4.77 kilograms of pure pseudoephedrine and replaced it with a harmless substance before allowing delivery to proceed.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for each offender under Commonwealth sentencing principles, having regard to the objective seriousness of the offence and the offenders' respective roles?
- What discount, if any, applied for each guilty plea?
- How should the sentence imposed on a co-offender (Mr Logendran) be treated for parity purposes?
- Was full-time imprisonment the only appropriate penalty under s 17A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)?
Decision
The court was satisfied that full-time imprisonment was the only appropriate penalty for both offenders. Bourke SC DCJ imposed a 25 percent discount on each sentence, reflecting the utilitarian value of the guilty pleas.
The court found that Mr P's role was the more significant of the two. Phone evidence linked him to 26 consignments beyond the one intercepted on the day of arrest, with 25 of those either containing or alleged to have contained pseudoephedrine. Mr O was linked to five of those additional consignments. Both offenders were found to have had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance being imported, which the court treated as a factor increasing the objective seriousness of their offences above that of Logendran, who had been sentenced on the basis of recklessness only.
On parity, the court noted the earlier sentence imposed on Logendran by Townsden DCJ: a head term of five years seven months with a non-parole period of three years, for an attempt offence assessed at the lower end of objective seriousness. Bourke SC DCJ considered that sentence as a reference point but made clear it was not a binding benchmark or mandatory starting point for Mr P and Mr O, given the material differences in their culpability.
Orders Made
Mr Perinparasa:
- Head sentence: 6 years 7 months, commencing 11 November 2021, expiring 10 June 2028
- Non-parole period: 3 years 9 months, expiring 10 August 2025
Mr Omsivapirahasham:
- Head sentence: 5 years 10 months, commencing 11 November 2021, expiring 10 September 2027
- Non-parole period: 3 years 4 months, expiring 10 March 2025
Key Takeaways
- The District Court treated the 25-year statutory maximum as a meaningful guidepost in calibrating the sentences, not merely as background context.
- A 25 percent discount for guilty pleas applied in both cases, reflecting the utilitarian value of those pleas under Commonwealth sentencing principles.
- Actual knowledge of the substance being imported was treated as more serious than recklessness, directly affecting the court's assessment of objective seriousness relative to the co-offender sentenced earlier.
- Where co-offenders are sentenced by different judges, a parity comparison remains relevant, but the later sentencing court retains full discretion and is not required to treat the earlier sentence as a floor or benchmark.
- Differential roles within the same conspiracy produced meaningfully different sentences: the offender who coordinated the broader network of 26 consignments received a longer head sentence than the offender whose involvement was confined to a smaller number of consignments.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), ss 11.5 and 307.11(1) (conspiracy to import a border-controlled precursor in a commercial quantity)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 17A (full-time imprisonment as the only appropriate penalty)
Cases:
- Sentence of Logendran imposed by Townsden DCJ (referenced for parity purposes; no citation provided in the judgment)
- Additional cases referenced by the parties and statistics from the Judicial Commission of New South Wales were considered but not individually named in the sentencing remarks.