District Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Alimi v R [2018] NSWDC 541 Hearing dates: 07 May 2018 Date of orders: 07 May 2018 Decision date: 07 May 2018 Jurisdiction: Criminal Before: Bennett SC DCJ Decision: (1) Allow the appeal (2) Confirm the conviction and revocation of the Community Service order (3) S 12 bond for a period of 9 months from today with conditions Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Amin Alimi (Appellant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Julian Mufale (solicitor for the Appellant) Jessica Chan (solicitor for the Respondent) Legal Aid NSW (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent) File Number(s): 2016/00337349 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: Liverpool Local Court Jurisdiction: Criminal Date of Decision: 20 April 2018 Before: McAnulty LCM File Number(s): 2016/00337349 REVISED EX TEMPORE JUDGEMENT INTRODUCTION 1. Amin Alimi appeals from the sentence of imprisonment of 7 months with a non-parole period of 4 months imposed after he failed to comply with a Community Service Order of 150 hours. I have read the report from Community Corrections, it is beyond me why he did not take the opportunity given to him, but be that as it may, he failed to meet his obligations and the magistrate quite properly called him up and imposed a sentence of imprisonment. SENTENCE IMPOSED UPON CO-OFFENDERS 1. In the interim, his co-offenders were prosecuted and one of them who was the principal in the enterprise the subject of the charge was given a bond pursuant to s 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 by another judge of this Court. In my view that sentence was generous. I do not, however, have the material that was available to the judge in that case and I know not the strength of any subjective case that was presented on behalf of the appellant. My view is expressed only upon the objective facts which indicate this to be an offence of significant seriousness. THE FACTS 1. Briefly stated, the principal in the criminal enterprise acquired a motor vehicle. When out and about enjoying his new acquisition, he crashed it. The day after with a co-offender, an insurance policy was arranged with the false representation that the vehicle was in sound condition. 2. Thereafter, another collision was created using another motor vehicle, and the subject motor vehicle in respect of which an insurance claim was then lodged. 3. The appellant participated in its enterprise first of all by driving his vehicle with the co-offenders to the point where the subsequent collision was arranged and thereafter, using his skills as a photographer/graphic designer, altered records, including telephone records and a bank statement to facilitate the fraudulent claim on the insurance company. CONSIDERATION 1. The anticipated loss from the insurance company did not exceed $20,000 as I understand it; in relative terms that is a modest sum. However, conduct such as this is a burden for the entire community because the cost of insurance which we all must pay includes actuarially a component to address the risk that criminals such as this will so behave. 2. The principle of parity is well-established, and where there is bound to be a justifiable sense of grievance in an offender who is dealt with more harshly than another offender engaged upon the same criminal enterprise, particularly where the other offender is engaged in a more senior level in the organisation, appellate courts are required to intervene to make an adjustment to assuage the sense of grievance that the other decision might engender. 3. Members of the community hearing this might find it odd but it is a principle of law which binds this Court. In my view, the Community Service Order was in the first instance appropriate, but in failing to meet his obligations without any adequate explanation according to the report that I have read, he justly deserved the sentence of imprisonment that was imposed by the magistrate thereafter. 4. When called upon to re-sentence an offender in such circumstances, one must look back and consider the objective facts and circumstances and the subjective material tendered on behalf of the appellant. I have reviewed the pre-sentence report. I have noted that he is now approaching 35 years of age, has no prior similar offences, and is married with two children. ORDERS 1. In my view, a sentence of imprisonment of 9 months was more apposite in this case. Accordingly, I shall set aside the sentence of imprisonment of 7 months and replace it with one of 9 months, however, rather than require him to serve that sentence, I am going to adopt the course taken in the hearing of the other matter where the offender was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months and s 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 applied. I shall follow the same course here. 2. Accordingly, I allow the appeal. I confirm the conviction and order revocation the Community Service Order. I set aside the term of imprisonment of 7 months. In lieu thereof, I impose a term of imprisonment of 9 months. Pursuant to s 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, I suspend the implementation of that sentence conditionally upon the appellant entering into a bond to be of good behaviour for a period of 9 months from today. The conditions of the bond are that he be of good behaviour and that he resides at XXX/XX North Rocks Road, North Rocks, 2151. He is not to leave that address unless he gives written notice thereof of his intention to do so by pre-paid registered post to the Registrar of this Court and to the Community Corrections Office. 3. Within 2 days of his release, he is to attend upon the Community Corrections Office at Parramatta to organise the supervision of this bond. He is to be supervised for such time as the Community Corrections officers deem it necessary. 4. The appellant should understand that should he appear before me for breaching this bond, I will send him to gaol and he will have to serve the sentence of 9 months, subject to a non-parole period that will have to be applied. ********** 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: 10 January 2022