District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v Razali [2021] NSWDC 167 Hearing dates: 24 March 2021 Date of orders: 24 March 2021 Decision date: 24 March 2021 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: M L Williams SC DCJ Decision: Pursuant to s 20(1)(a) of the Crimes At 1914 (Cth) I order the conditional release of the offender, subject to the offender entering into a recognisance, self, in the sum of $100 and that the offender is to be of good behaviour for 12 months. Catchwords: SENTENCING — Federal offenders — Relevant considerations SENTENCING — Mitigating factors — Plea of guilty — Remorse — Good character — Unlikely to re-offend SENTENCING — Penalties — Recognisance SENTENCING — Relevant factors on sentence — Circumstances of offence — Co-offenders — Deterrence — General principles — Purposes of sentencing Legislation Cited: Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Cases Cited: R v Shahudin [2021] NSWDC 163 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Sentence Parties: Regina (Crown) Muhammad Razali (Offender) Representation: Mr Bloomfield (Solicitor for the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions) Mr S Rowland (Solicitor for the offender) File Number(s): 2020/14457 Judgment 1. Muhammad Razali, now aged 29, pleads guilty to one offence of producing tobacco leaf of 500 kg or more contrary to s 308‑125 of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth) which carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment. 2. He pleaded guilty at an early stage, justifying a 25% discount in accordance with Commonwealth sentencing principles. He served six months and 19 days in custody after his arrest. 3. My reasons will be extremely brief as I have a jury waiting and because the comprehensive written submissions from the Crown and Mr Rowland for the offender acknowledge that the question of parity leads inevitably to the conclusion that this gentleman should receive the same sentence as his co-offender Mr Mohammad Shahudin who was sentenced in this Court on 15 March 2021(R v Shahudin [2021] NSWDC 163). 4. The agreed facts show that between 1 and 14 May 2020 the offender produced tobacco leaf while working at a rural property at Dalton. This offender and his co-offender who has already been sentenced are acknowledged by the Crown not to be principles in the operation. The Police found an extensive tobacco cultivation operation. The offender said in an interview that he had been there for about two weeks and he was getting paid $170 a day. The agreed facts show that the excise foregone on the tobacco at the property was around $3.1 million. 5. The offender has no record. The only differentiating factor between this and the co-offender to which the Crown points in submissions is his asserted lack of remorse on the basis that he failed to engage in the Sentence Assessment process. Even if that were a significant factor, more importantly this man has already served more than six months in custody while his co-offender served three months in custody. The remarks on sentence that I delivered in detail when dealing with the co-offender (R v Shahudin [2021] NSWDC 163) set out the consideration of objective seriousness and the applicable sentencing principles and I do not think it appropriate, while a jury is waiting in another matter, to deal with them in these remarks. For those reasons the orders I will make are: 1. The offender is convicted of the offence. 2. Pursuant to s 20(1)(a) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), I order the conditional release of the offender, subject to the following conditions: 1. The offender enters into a recognisance, self, in the sum of $100. 2. The offender is to be of good behaviour for 12 months. 1. ROWLAND: As the Court pleases. 2. BLOOMFIELD: May it please the Court. 3. HIS HONOUR: Madam Interpreter the order is that there's a conditional release subject to him entering into a good behaviour bond for a period of 12 months. Note – These extempore remarks were revised without access to the court file ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 12 May 2021