Ali v R - [2008] NSWCCA 60

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: ALI v R [2008] NSWCCA 60
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 14 March 2008

JUDGMENT DATE:
14 March 2008

JUDGMENT OF: Bell JA at 1; Adams J at 2; Latham J at 6

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 14 March 2008

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted
2. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCE APPEAL - Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime - no question of parity - no question of principle raised by Appeal.

LEGISLATION CITED: Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1900

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

PARTIES: Ashiq Ali - (Applicant)
Regina - (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/3120

COUNSEL: WP Lowe - (Applicant)
P Miller - (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Jacksons Law - (Applicant)
S Kavanagh (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions) - (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/11/0192

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Conlon SC DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 6 July 2007

2007/3120

BELL JA
ADAMS J
LATHAM J
14 MARCH 2008

ASHIQ ALI v REGINA

Judgment

1 BELL JA : I agree with Latham J.

2 ADAMS J: I also agree, but I wish to add some comments of my own.

3 We live in a society in which documents used in financial transactions and the identification of individuals has become increasingly important. Maintaining the integrity of those documents and their use has a significant public interest quite apart from that in punishing theft, and those who wish to profit from it. Maintaining the security of those documentary systems has become a major imposition on the ordinary undertaking of business and travel. The crimes committed by the applicant do not merely affect the particular individuals or corporations directly involved, but form part of overall criminal activity which imposes substantial costs on the community. So considered, it is to my mind impossible to reasonably suggest that the sentences imposed on the applicant were excessive.

4 So far as parity is concerned it seems to me that as a matter of principle every case where an issue arises about the imposition of equal justice, a court is bound to consider whether or not what it does is consistent with that fundamental principle of the administration of justice. And this enquiry is not to be put aside, or regarded as insignificant because of accidental technical processes. In this case, however, as I see it the real complaint of the applicant is not that the that the sentencing Court dealt with him unfairly as distinct from the way in which the Local Court dealt with his accomplice. His real complaint is that it was unfair that he should be charged with a very much more serious offence than that of the person whom he employed to assist him to carry it out. One has only to state that proposition to see at once that there was, at all events, a reasonable basis for the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Ali v R

Details

AGLC: Ali v R [2008] NSWCCA 60
Case: [2008] NSWCCA 60
Decision Date: 14 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Ali, was convicted and sentenced for knowingly dealing with the proceeds of crime. Ali appealed against the severity of his sentence, arguing that the trial judge did not adequately consider the principles of parity and proportionality. The appeal was heard by the court, which was required to determine whether the trial judge's approach to sentencing was flawed and whether the sentence imposed was excessive.

The court examined the principles of parity and proportionality, which require that sentences for similar crimes be consistent and that the sentence imposed be commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. The court found that there was no question of parity in this case, as the sentence imposed was consistent with other cases of a similar nature. The court also concluded that no principle had been raised by the appeal that warranted a departure from the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The court emphasised that the trial judge had carefully considered the circumstances of the case and had imposed a sentence that was appropriate to the seriousness of the offence. The court noted that Ali had played a significant role in the criminal activity and had derived substantial benefit from his involvement. The court rejected Ali's argument that the sentence was excessive and upheld the original sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appeal was unsuccessful, and the sentence remained unchanged.

Orders