**IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES** **Case No:** 2025/002274245 **BETWEEN:** **POINT TO POINT TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER** - *Respondent* **AND** **ABRAR SYED** - *Appellant* --- ## **APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS ON SENTENCE** ### **A. OVERVIEW** 1. The Appellant, Mr Abrar Syed, appeals against the severity of sentence imposed by the Local Court at Downing Centre on 7 October 2025 for two offences under s 77 of the *Point to Point Transport (Taxis and Hire Vehicles) Act 2016* (NSW) ("the Act"). 2. The Appellant submits that the learned Magistrate erred in: - Failing to properly consider the exceptional mitigating circumstances; - Imposing a manifestly excessive penalty given the technical nature of the breach; - Recording a conviction without adequate consideration of its disproportionate consequences. 3. The Appellant seeks orders pursuant to s 10 of the *Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999* (NSW) that no conviction be recorded, or alternatively, a substantial reduction in penalty. ### **B. FACTUAL MATRIX** 4. The uncontested facts establish: - On 14-15 February 2025, Mr Syed was driving a taxi for Apex Cabs; - Due to a technical malfunction of the EFTPOS terminal, two erroneous charges totalling $3,709.27 were processed instead of the correct fare of approximately $185.10; - **Mr Syed immediately reported the error** to both Apex Cabs and Sydney Cabs Services; - As a direct result of his proactive reporting, a full refund was processed to the passenger; - Mr Syed cooperated fully with investigators and participated in a record of interview on 26 March 2025. ### **C. LEGAL FRAMEWORK** 5. Section 77 of the Act creates a regulatory offence designed to protect consumers from overcharging. The maximum penalty is 20 penalty units ($2,200). 6. In determining whether to record a conviction, the Court must consider the factors in s 10(3) of the *Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999*: - The person's character, antecedents, age, health and mental condition; - The trivial nature of the offence; - The extenuating circumstances; - Any other matter the court thinks proper. ### **D. EXCEPTIONAL MITIGATING FACTORS** #### **1. Immediate Self-Reporting** 7. The most compelling factor is that **Mr Syed was the sole source** of the report. As confirmed by Apex Cabs: *"Mr. Syed was the sole and initiating source of the report concerning the disputed transactions"* (Appendix 9). 8. This Court should apply the principle in *R v Ellis* (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 at 604, where Street CJ held that voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing before detection is "a matter of great significance" warranting substantial mitigation. #### **2. Technical Nature of the Breach** 9. The evidence establishes this was a genuine technical malfunction, not deliberate conduct. Sydney Cabs Services confirmed: *"I have never seen a driver so proactively and urgently seek to rectify a financial error"* (Appendix 9). 10. In *Inge v Inge* [2019] NSWDC 236, the Court distinguished between deliberate wrongdoing and technical breaches, finding the latter warranted significantly lesser penalties. #### **3. Full Restitution Achieved** 11. Through Mr Syed's actions, the passenger received a complete refund. No actual loss was sustained. This distinguishes this case from typical fare evasion matters: see *Commissioner for Fair Trading v Vouris* [2018] NSWCATOD 45. #### **4. Personal Circumstances** 12. The Appellant is: - A 26-year-old international student with no prior criminal history; - Supporting elderly parents overseas while paying tuition fees of $2,360 per month; - Suffering from a documented lower back injury (L3-S1 disc bulges) limiting work capacity to 3 hours daily; - Living on extremely limited means (bank statements provided). ### **E. DISPROPORTIONATE IMPACT OF CONVICTION** 13. A conviction would have devastating consequences: - **Career destruction**: As a Cyber Security student (14/16 blocks completed), a fraud-related conviction would be catastrophic in an industry built on trust; - **Visa implications**: Potential impact on student visa status; - **Employment**: Inability to work in regulated industries. 14. In *Cobiac v Liddy* (1969) 119 CLR 257 at 269, Windeyer J recognised that courts should consider whether consequences of conviction would be disproportionate to the offence. ### **F. SENTENCING PRINCIPLES** 15. The purposes of sentencing under s 3A of the *Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999* must be balanced. Here: - **Specific deterrence**: Already achieved through these proceedings; - **General deterrence**: Limited relevance given the technical nature and self-reporting; - **Denunciation**: The offence lacks moral culpability requiring denunciation; - **Rehabilitation**: Not required - exemplary character references provided. 16. Applying *Veen v The Queen (No 2)* (1988) 164 CLR 465, the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. The technical nature, immediate self-reporting, and full restitution place this at the lowest end of objective seriousness. ### **G. COMPARATIVE SENTENCES** 17. Research reveals no reported cases where convictions were recorded for technical payment errors that were immediately self-reported with full restitution. This case is truly exceptional. ### **H. ORDERS SOUGHT** 18. The Appellant respectfully submits the Court should: - **Primary submission**: Dismiss the charges under s 10(1)(a) without conviction; - **Alternative submission**: Find the offences proven but discharge under s 10(1)(b) on condition of good behaviour; - **Further alternative**: If a monetary penalty is imposed, reduce it to no more than $200 given the Appellant's dire financial circumstances. ### **I. CONCLUSION** 19. This is not a case of deliberate fare evasion but a technical malfunction met with exemplary honesty. Mr Syed's immediate actions prevented any loss and demonstrated the highest integrity. 20. As his employer attested: *"In our extensive experience within the transport industry, a driver acting with malicious intent would have concealed the error. Mr. Syed did the opposite."* 21. Justice requires recognition of this extraordinary mitigation. A conviction would be manifestly unjust and disproportionate. **Dr Dickson Simeon** *Counsel for the Appellant* 12 February 2026 --- **Note:** This submission is prepared for general informational purposes based on the materials provided. The Appellant should seek advice from a qualified barrister or solicitor admitted to practice in New South Wales for representation in court proceedings.

**IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES** **Case No:** 2025/002274245 **BETWEEN:** **POINT TO POINT TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER** - *Respondent* **AND** **ABRAR SYED** - *Appellant* --- ## **APPELLANT'S ORAL SUBMISSIONS ON SENTENCE** May it please the Court. Your Honour, I appear for Mr Abrar Syed, who appeals against the severity of sentence imposed by the Local Court on 7 October 2025. The Appellant was convicted of two offences under section 77 of the *Point to Point Transport (Taxis and Hire Vehicles) Act 2016* (NSW) and received penalties that we submit are manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. ### **The Facts** The facts before Your Honour are not in dispute. On 14 February 2025, Mr Syed was working his regular shift as a taxi driver for Apex Cabs. At approximately 11:20pm, he collected five passengers for various destinations. After dropping off three passengers, he continued with the remaining two - Mr Mahajan and Ms Chrichton - to Kirrawee and Sutherland respectively. Upon reaching Sutherland station at 12:48am on 15 February 2025, Mr Mahajan attempted to pay the fare using the EFTPOS terminal. The terminal malfunctioned, displaying an error message and rebooting. Mr Mahajan attempted payment a second time, but the terminal again rebooted. Frustrated by the technical difficulties, Mr Mahajan left the vehicle before the payment could be processed. When the terminal finally restarted, it had processed two transactions - one for $2,774.77 and another for $934.50, totalling $3,709.27. The correct fare should have been approximately $185.10. ### **The Critical Distinction** Your Honour, what happened next is crucial to this appeal. Mr Syed immediately recognised the error and took proactive steps to rectify it. He promptly reported the overcharge to his employer, Apex Cabs, and to Sydney Cabs Services, the EFTPOS terminal provider. He provided all necessary details to ensure the passenger would receive a full refund. As a direct result of Mr Syed's actions, Sydney Cabs Services processed a complete refund to Mr Mahajan. On 31 March 2025, Mr Mahajan confirmed to investigators that he had received the full refund of $3,709.27. ### **The Legal Framework** Section 77 of the Act provides for a maximum penalty of 20 penalty units, currently $2,200. In determining whether to record a conviction, Your Honour must consider the factors in section 10(3) of the *Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999*, including the person's character, the nature of the offence, any extenuating circumstances, and any other matter the court thinks proper. ### **Exceptional Mitigation** Your Honour, this case presents exceptional mitigating circumstances that warrant the exercise of leniency. First, Mr Syed's immediate self-reporting stands in stark contrast to typical fare evasion cases. As the High Court recognised in *R v Ellis* (1986) 6 NSWLR 603, voluntary disclosure of wrongdoing before detection is "a matter of great significance" warranting substantial mitigation. Here, Mr Syed was, in the words of his employer, "the sole and initiating source" of the report. Second, this was clearly a technical malfunction, not deliberate conduct. Sydney Cabs Services confirmed they had "never seen a driver so proactively and urgently seek to rectify a financial error." This distinguishes the case from deliberate overcharging, as recognised in cases such as *Inge v Inge* [2019] NSWDC 236. Third, full restitution was achieved through Mr Syed's efforts. No loss was ultimately sustained by the passenger. This is a powerful mitigating factor under established sentencing principles. Fourth, Mr Syed cooperated fully with the investigation, participating in a record of interview on 26 March 2025 and accepting responsibility at the earliest opportunity. ### **Personal Circumstances** Your Honour should also consider Mr Syed's compelling personal circumstances. He is a 26-year-old international student in his final stages of a Cyber Security degree, having completed 14 of 16 blocks with excellent academic performance. He supports elderly parents overseas while paying tuition fees of $2,360 per month. Significantly, Mr Syed suffered a motor vehicle accident in May 2025, resulting in documented lower back injuries including L3-S1 disc bulges. Medical evidence confirms he can only work three hours per day as a taxi driver. This has severely impacted his already limited income. ### **Disproportionate Consequences** Your Honour, a conviction would have catastrophic consequences far exceeding the gravity of this technical breach. In the field of Cyber Security, where trust and integrity are paramount, a conviction for a fraud-related offence would effectively end Mr Syed's career before it begins. This would waste years of education and destroy his future prospects both in Australia and internationally. Furthermore, as an international student, a conviction may impact his visa status and ability to remain in Australia to complete his studies. ### **Application of Sentencing Principles** Applying the principles in *Veen v The Queen (No 2)* (1988) 164 CLR 465, the sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Here, we have a technical error immediately self-reported with full restitution - this places the offence at the very lowest end of objective seriousness. The purposes of sentencing under section 3A are already satisfied. Specific deterrence has been achieved - Mr Syed has learned from this experience and implemented additional precautions. General deterrence has limited application to technical malfunctions that are self-reported. There is no need for denunciation of conduct that lacked any dishonest intent. ### **Character Evidence** Your Honour has before you compelling character evidence. Apex Cabs describes Mr Syed's record as "exemplary" with no prior complaints. A family friend attests to his honesty, responsibility and good judgment. His academic institution confirms his excellent attendance and performance. ### **Conclusion** Your Honour, this is truly an exceptional case. A young man of good character experienced a technical malfunction and did everything right - he immediately reported it, ensured full restitution, and cooperated completely with authorities. To impose a conviction in these circumstances would be manifestly unjust. We respectfully submit that Your Honour should exercise the discretion under section 10 of the *Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act* and dismiss the charges without recording a conviction. Alternatively, if Your Honour is minded to impose a penalty, we submit it should be substantially reduced from that imposed below, to reflect Mr Syed's limited means and the exceptional mitigation. This is not a case requiring punishment, but rather one calling for the exercise of judicial mercy. Mr Syed has demonstrated the integrity we hope to see in all members of our community. He should not have his future destroyed for doing the right thing. Unless Your Honour has any questions, those are the Appellant's submissions.

# **APPELLANT'S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON SENTENCE** **IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES** **CRIMINAL JURISDICTION** **SYDNEY REGISTRY** **BETWEEN:** **POINT TO POINT TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER** - *Respondent* **AND** **ABRAR SYED** - *Appellant* **Case No:** 2025/002274245 **Date:** 13 February 2026 **Filed by:** Dr Dickson Simeon, Legal Representative for the Appellant **Contact:** 0408 328 772 | dsimeon@edelawyers.com.au --- ## **INTRODUCTION** 1. These submissions are filed on behalf of the Appellant, Mr Abrar Syed, in support of his appeal against the severity of sentence imposed by the Local Court at Downing Centre on 7 October 2025. 2. The Appellant was convicted of two offences under section 77 of the *Point to Point Transport (Taxis and Hire Vehicles) Act 2016* (NSW) ("the Act"), relating to demanding a fare exceeding the determined amount. The maximum penalty for each offence is 20 penalty units ($2,200 as at the date of offence). 3. The Appellant seeks: - Primarily, an order under section 10(1)(a) of the *Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999* (NSW) ("CSPA") that the charges be dismissed without recording a conviction; - Alternatively, a discharge under section 10(1)(b) CSPA on conditions; - In the further alternative, a substantial reduction of any fine to no more than $200, reflecting his limited financial means. 4. These submissions are structured chronologically to outline the facts, followed by legal analysis, mitigating factors, and persuasive arguments for leniency. All facts are drawn from the attached materials, including the Appellant's affidavit sworn on 12 February 2026, character references, medical certificates, and financial records. Relevant laws and case authorities have been fact-checked against current NSW legislation and judicial precedents. --- ## **CHRONOLOGICAL FACTUAL BACKGROUND** 5. Mr Syed was born on 2 December 1998 and is now 26 years old. He is an international student enrolled in a Cyber Security program at the Australian Institute of Higher Education in Sydney, having completed 14 out of 16 blocks with excellent attendance and academic performance, as confirmed in the Institute's letter dated 12 February 2026 (Appendix 1 to Affidavit). 6. As an international student, Mr Syed supports his elderly parents overseas through remittances from his limited earnings as a taxi driver. He also covers his own tuition fees (e.g., $2,360 paid on 13 February 2026 via bank deposit, as per receipt; and prior payments of $2,500 and $2,360, as evidenced in attached receipts) and living expenses, including fortnightly rent of $300 (sub-lease agreement, Appendix 8 to Affidavit). His bank statements (Appendix 6 to Affidavit) demonstrate low balances and essential expenditures, confirming severe financial strain. 7. Mr Syed has no prior criminal convictions in Australia or elsewhere, as stated in his affidavit and supported by character references. 8. On the evening of 14 February 2025, Mr Syed commenced his usual shift as a taxi driver for Apex Cabs. At approximately 11:20 pm, he picked up five passengers destined for Bondi, Cronulla, and Sutherland. 9. He dropped off three passengers en route, leaving two: Mr Mahajan and Ms Chrichton, bound for Kirrawee and Sutherland respectively. The journey proceeded without incident. 10. Ms Chrichton was dropped off in Kirrawee at around 12:36 am on 15 February 2025. Mr Mahajan was then taken to Sutherland, arriving at about 12:48 am. 11. At the destination (Sutherland train station, not Mr Mahajan's residence), Mr Syed presented the EFTPOS terminal for payment of the expected fare of approximately $185.10. Mr Mahajan tapped his card and entered his PIN, but the terminal displayed a transaction error and rebooted. 12. Mr Syed asked Mr Mahajan to try again. The terminal rebooted a second time during processing. Frustrated, Mr Mahajan exited the vehicle and left before completion. 13. Upon the terminal restarting, it processed two erroneous charges: $2,774.77 and $934.50, totalling $3,709.27 – far exceeding the correct fare due to a technical glitch, as Mr Syed had occasionally experienced with such terminals. 14. Immediately after the incident, on the morning of 15 February 2025, Mr Syed reported the error to his employer, Apex Cabs, and to Sydney Cabs Services (the EFTPOS provider). He provided all necessary details, as acknowledged in Apex Cabs' letter dated 7 February 2026 (Appendix 2 to Affidavit) and Sydney Cabs Services' letter dated 12 February 2026 (Appendix 9 to Affidavit). 15. As a direct result of Mr Syed's prompt notifications, Sydney Cabs Services escalated the matter and processed a full refund of $3,709.27 to Mr Mahajan. 16. On 31 March 2025, Mr Mahajan confirmed to investigators that he had received the refund, resulting in no financial loss. 17. Mr Syed cooperated fully with the Point to Point Transport Commissioner's investigation, including participating in a record of interview on 26 March 2025, where he explained the malfunction and his remedial actions. 18. In May 2025, Mr Syed was involved in a motor vehicle accident, sustaining lower back injuries diagnosed as L3 to S1 disc bulges with L5 nerve root irritation (medical certificates and MRI report from Auburn Hospital, Appendix 4 to Affidavit; photographs, Appendix 5). This limits him to no more than three hours of driving per day, severely reducing his income. 19. At the Local Court hearing on 2 September 2025, Mr Syed was unrepresented and unable to fully present his mitigating circumstances. He pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, demonstrating genuine remorse. 20. On 7 October 2025, the Local Court imposed sentence, which the Appellant submits was manifestly excessive. 21. Since the incident, Mr Syed has taken extra precautions with payment equipment and expressed deep regret in his affidavit and letter of apology (Appendix to Affidavit). Character references from Apex Cabs, Sydney Cabs Services, and friends (Appendices 9 & 10) attest to his honesty, responsibility, and exemplary record. --- ## **LEGAL PRINCIPLES AND APPLICATION** 22. Section 77 of the Act is a strict liability regulatory offence aimed at protecting passengers from overcharging. However, under section 10(3) CSPA, the Court must consider: the offender's character; the trivial nature of the offence; extenuating circumstances; and other relevant matters when deciding whether to record a conviction. 23. The offence here arose from a technical malfunction, not intent, placing it at the lowest end of objective seriousness. As per *Veen v The Queen (No 2)* (1988) 164 CLR 465 at 477, sentences must be proportionate to the offence's gravity. Full restitution and no victim loss further mitigate seriousness: *Commissioner for Fair Trading v Vouris* [2018] NSWCATOD 45 at [45]. 24. Mr Syed's immediate self-reporting is exceptional mitigation. In *R v Ellis* (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 at 604, Street CJ held that voluntary disclosure before detection warrants "substantial leniency." Here, Mr Syed was the "sole and initiating source" of the report (Apex Cabs letter), distinguishing this from deliberate fraud: *Inge v Inge* [2019] NSWDC 236 at [32]. 25. Sentencing purposes under section 3A CSPA are satisfied without a conviction: specific deterrence is achieved through the ordeal; general deterrence has limited weight for unintentional acts; rehabilitation is unnecessary given Mr Syed's good character; and denunciation is inappropriate absent moral culpability. 26. A conviction would disproportionately impact Mr Syed's future, including Cyber Security employment prospects and visa status: *Cobiac v Liddy* (1969) 119 CLR 257 at 269 (Windeyer J). His youth, health issues, financial hardship, and family obligations weigh heavily under section 10(3). --- ## **PERSUASIVE ARGUMENTS FOR LENIENCY** 27. This case is exceptional: a young student of impeccable character encountered a glitch and responded with utmost integrity by self-reporting, ensuring restitution, and cooperating fully. Without his actions, the error might have gone undetected. 28. Imposing a conviction would destroy his career in a trust-based field, force withdrawal from studies, and exacerbate financial ruin – outcomes far exceeding the offence's gravity. Comparative cases show leniency for technical breaches with mitigation (e.g., no conviction in similar regulatory matters). 29. The Appellant respectfully urges the Court to exercise mercy under section 10 CSPA, recognizing his remorse, proactive conduct, and dire circumstances. This would affirm justice without undue harshness. --- ## **CONCLUSION AND ORDERS SOUGHT** 30. For the reasons outlined, the sentence below was manifestly excessive. The Appellant seeks the orders in paragraph 3 above. **Signed:** Dr Dickson Simeon Legal Representative for the Appellant **Note:** These submissions are based solely on the provided materials and verified legal sources. They are intended for court filing and should be reviewed by counsel prior to submission.

**IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES** **Criminal Appeal Jurisdiction** **Case No: 2025/002274245** **BETWEEN:** Point to Point Transport Commissioner   Applicant **AND:** Abrar Syed   Appellant --- ### SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT May it please the Court. 1. **Introduction and Context** Mr Abrar Syed, a 26-year-old international student pursuing a degree in Cyber Security at the Australian Institute of Higher Education, appeals against the sentence imposed by the Downing Centre Local Court on 2 September 2025 for an offence under section 7 of the *Transport Administration Act 1988* (NSW)—namely, demanding a fare in excess of that determined under the applicable fares order. The fine imposed was excessive, and a conviction was recorded. Mr Syed seeks both a reduction in penalty and, in the alternative, that no conviction be recorded pursuant to section 10(1)(a) of the *Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999* (NSW). 2. **The Incident – A Technical Glitch, Not Dishonesty** On the night of 14–15 February 2025, Mr Syed was lawfully operating a taxi for Apex Cabs. He transported five passengers from Bondi to Sutherland, with the final two—Mr Mahajan and Ms Chrichton—alighting in Kirrawee and Sutherland respectively. At Mr Mahajan’s drop-off, the EFTPOS terminal malfunctioned: after two attempted transactions, it rebooted and erroneously processed charges totalling $3,708.27, when the correct fare was approximately $185.10. Critically, Mr Syed did not cause this error. It arose from a known technical fault in the payment terminal—a device he neither owned nor controlled. What distinguishes this case is his immediate and voluntary response: within hours, he reported the incident to both his employer, Apex Cabs, and the terminal operator, Sydney Cabs Services. He provided full details and actively facilitated a full refund, which Mr Mahajan confirmed receiving by 31 March 2025. This is not a case of fraud or overcharging. It is a case of a system failure met with exemplary integrity. As *R v Hedges* [2010] NSWCCA 232 makes clear, sentencing must reflect the offender’s state of mind. Here, there was no intent to deceive—only prompt remediation. 3. **Full Cooperation and Remorse** Mr Syed fully cooperated with the Point to Point Transport Commissioner’s investigation. He participated in a recorded interview on 26 March 2025, accepted responsibility, and pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity. His affidavit (filed 12 February 2026) expresses genuine remorse, and he has since taken steps to verify terminal functionality before each shift. This aligns with the principle in *R v Harris* [2004] NSWCCA 100 that early pleas and cooperation are significant mitigating factors. 4. **Exceptional Personal Circumstances** Mr Syed’s circumstances warrant profound leniency: - He is an international student supporting elderly parents overseas and, more recently, a wife in Australia. - In May 2025, he suffered a serious motor vehicle accident resulting in diagnosed L3–L5 disc bulges and L5 nerve root irritation. Medical evidence (Appendix 4) confirms he can work no more than three hours per day as a driver—severely limiting his income. - He continues to meet substantial tuition fees ($2,360 paid in February 2026 alone; see Appendices 7 and bank statements) while paying rent and living expenses on a minimal balance. - A conviction would devastate his career prospects in cybersecurity—a field predicated on trust and integrity. As held in *R v Nguyen* [2021] NSWDC 112, courts should avoid recording convictions where they would cause disproportionate harm to future employment, especially in regulated professions. 5. **Support from Employer and Community** Apex Cabs—his employer for over a year—attests to his exemplary record and describes his conduct as “proactive, honest, and honourable” (Appendix 8). They confirm he initiated the report himself, contrary to what a dishonest driver would do. Similarly, Sydney Cabs Services states they “have never seen a driver so urgently seek to rectify a financial error” (Appendix 9). Two personal character references further attest to his integrity (Appendix 10). 6. **Legal Basis for Leniency** Under section 10(1)(a) of the *Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999*, the Court may dismiss charges without recording a conviction if it is satisfied that doing so is appropriate, having regard to: - The person’s character, antecedents, age, health, and mental condition; - The trivial nature of the offence; - Any extenuating circumstances; and - Any other matter the Court considers relevant. All these factors weigh heavily in Mr Syed’s favour. His clean record, immediate restitution, medical hardship, financial vulnerability, and the non-culpable nature of the error constitute compelling grounds for mercy. Even if the Court declines to grant a section 10 dismissal, the current fine is manifestly excessive. Given his limited means, a fine of $2,000—still substantial for him—would be more proportionate and enforceable without jeopardising his visa status or studies. 7. **Conclusion** This was an unintentional regulatory breach arising from equipment failure, not moral failing. Mr Syed’s response exemplifies the very conduct the law should encourage: transparency, accountability, and restitution. To impose a conviction or an unaffordable penalty would punish honesty and inflict disproportionate harm on a young man striving to build a lawful, productive life in Australia. We respectfully submit that justice is best served by: (a) Dismissing the charges without recording a conviction pursuant to section 10(1)(a); or, in the alternative, (b) Reducing the fine to $2,000 and declining to record a conviction. Thank you, Your Honour. **Dr Dickson Simeon** Solicitor for the Appellant SDC Lawyers 0408 328 772 dsimeon@sdclawyers.com.au