By Paul Gregoire and Ugur Nedim
Lata Samate and Alex Sasulu left the Campsie Hotel at around 4.30 am on 3 September 2023 on foot, after Sasulu had been barred entry into the establishment for being too intoxicated. The pair then came across a nearby service station at 4.45 am, which happened to have the front doors wide open, rather than secured, as the owner was unloading stock from the boot of his car.
On entering, Samate walked through a door marked “Staff Only”, which gave him access to the area behind the counter, as he aimed to rob the store attendant, whilst Sasulu crouched behind shelving to keep a lookout. Samate then punched the attendant and started a fight. But on getting the upper hand, the employee had been attempting to push Samate out of the store, when Sasulu intervened.
Sasulu made physical contact with the shop employee via a shove, which allowed Samate to regain control of the situation, and he punched the attendant two more times in the face. The scuffle between the employee and his assailants continued for a little longer, prior to Samate and Sasulu leaving the store.
During the commotion, the service station owner had been in the storeroom, and on hearing the ruckus, he entered the main store area and tried to call a halt to the fight, which caused Sasulu to turn towards him and push him backwards into some shelving.
The entire attack on the service station owner and shop attendant took less than a minute. Multiple CCTV cameras captured what had occurred. NSW police were called and officers attended the site at 5.25 am. Attending officers then scoured the streets and came across Sasulu, whom they took to Campsie police station for charging. And Samate was arrested whilst driving on 13 December 2023.
First offender charged and sentenced
Following his arrest in the southern Sydney suburb of Bexley, Samate was charged with three offences, one of which was an alternative charge to a more serious main offence. An alternative charge comes into play if the prosecution cannot prove the more serious charge. This backup offence can then result in a less serious conviction for the criminal behaviour being tried.
On 24 August 2024, Samate pleaded guilty in the Downing Centre Local Court to one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm whilst in company, contrary to subsection 59(2) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). This offence can see a convicted person liable to up to 7 years imprisonment. This was the third count laid against his name, which related to the attack on the store owner.
As the matter proceeded to the NSW District Court, Samate entered a second guilty plea in respect of the initial count of robbery in company under subsection 97(1) of the Crimes Act. This offence can see an accused sentenced to up to 20 years gaol time. It was the first count on indictment, and it related to the assault upon the shop assistant.
The second count that acted as the alternative charge to count one, was a further count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, contrary section 59 of the Crimes Act.
In terms of the assault on the shop assistant, NSW District Court Judge David Barrow found he was vulnerable and doing his job, and he was subjected to a high level of violence, which made this a serious example of the crime. As for the assault on the owner, however, it was less serious, as Samate was only involved by way of the joint criminal enterprise, as it was Sasulu who perpetrated it.
The sentencing judge also noted Samate’s long criminal record that had involved other robberies in company at the same 7 Eleven with the same employee twice, and on another occasioning he and others beat up a man on the side of the road to take his mobile phone. While another prior 7 Eleven attack had seen Samate hold up a store whilst pretending he had a gun in his pocket.
On 15 May 2025, Judge Barrow sentenced Samate to 4 years prison, with non-parole set at 2 years and 6 months. This aggregate sentence involved a 10 percent discount for the guilty plea against robbery in company, as the plea was not entered at the earliest possible time, while a 25 percent discount applied to the actual bodily harm assault charge, as it was entered on the earliest occasion.
Sentencing the second offender
Sasulu faced the same three charges. He pleaded guilty in the NSW Local Court to the two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He was then made to stand trial on the first count of robbery in company in the NSW District Court, and on 5 December 2024, he was found not guilty of the robbery charge, as his involvement with the shop attendant was limited and comprised of shoving.
The sentencing judge then indicated that Sasulu was to receive a 25 percent discount on sentencing, and he then imposed an 18 month intensive correction order (ICO) upon the offender. An ICO is the strictest court-imposed sentence that can be served in the community, and it’s actually considered a custodial sentence, or akin to time detained in prison.
First offender appeals sentence
Samate then appealed his sentence to the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal (NSWCCA) on 8 December 2025. He did so based on one ground of appeal that consisted of his having “a justifiable sense of grievance as a result of the sentence” imposed upon his co-offender, as prior to any discounting, the indicative sentences saw the appellant receive 2 years for this crime, while Sasulu received 1 year.
This ground of appeal relies on the sentencing principle of parity, which maintains that similar penalties should be imposed for similar crimes that are committed by similar offenders. This principle should guard against unreasonable disparities in sentences involving co-offenders.
The issue with the sentences handed down in relation to the assault on the store owner, which involved Sasulu pushing the man backwards into some shelving is that Samate was only involved in this offensive behaviour by way of being in the midst of a joint-criminal enterprise and otherwise, he didn’t actively participate, as it was his co-offender who perpetrated the criminal act.
“I am satisfied that there is unjustifiable disparity between the indicative sentences imposed for count 3, given the roles of each in the offending and the basis for the applicant’s liability for it,” NSWCCA Justice Nicholas Chen said. “I am also satisfied that the indicative sentence for this count not only had the capacity to, but did, affect the aggregate sentence imposed.”
Therefore, the ground of appeal was made out and resentencing had to proceed.
His Honour too considered whether there were disparities in terms of the first offence, as Sasulu was found not guilty of robbery in company, whilst Samate pleaded guilty to this offence. Yet, Sasulu had pleaded to the lesser assault crime. And as Samate received an indicative sentence of 4 years for this conviction and Sasulu 1 year and 8 months for his assault conviction, this was found to be justified.
Resentenced on appeal
“A justifiable sense of grievance having been demonstrated, it falls upon this court to re-exercise the sentencing discretion and determine the sentence to impose,” Justice Chen explained on finding Samate’s appeal was made out.
His Honour agreed with the trial judge in respect of his assessment of the objective seriousness of the crimes, and the respective sentencing discounts were to remain the same as well.
On 16 December 2025, Justice Chen ordered the original sentence imposed upon Samate last May be quashed and the offender should be resentenced to 3 years and 9 months gaol time, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months.
NSWCCA Justices Kristina Stern and Hament Dhanji agreed with their colleague’s orders.
