Legal Research
Cases
Almada v R

Almada v R

Case [2015] NSWCCA 19 25 February 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Almada v R [2015] NSWCCA 19
Hearing dates: 25 February 2015
Date of orders: 25 February 2015
Decision date: 25 February 2015
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Harrison J at [2];
R A Hulme J at [3]
Decision:
1. Leave to appeal against sentence allowed.
2. Appeal dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal - appeal against sentence – money laundering offence – whether error in assessment of offender’s objective criminality – counsel on appeal bound by concession made in court below – assessment of offender’s prospects of rehabilitation open to trial judge – no error established
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – appeal against sentence – money laundering offence – importance of general deterrence - where applicant subject to good behaviour bond at time of offence – where applicant has longstanding drug problem – sentence not manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
R v Ansari [2007] NSWCCA 204; 70 NSWLR 89
R v Guo [2010] NSWCCA 170; 201 A Crim R 403
R v Huang; R v Siu [2007] NSWCCA 259; 174 A Crim R 370
R v Li [2010] NSWCCA 125; 202 A Crim R 195
R v Ly [2014] NSWCCA 78
Shi v R [2014] NSWCCA 276
Van Haltren v R [2008] 191 A Crim R 53
Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584
Zreika v R [2012] NSWCCA 44
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Andrew Nicholas Almada (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms S Beckett (Applicant)
Mr L Crowley (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Horowitz & Bilinsky Pty Ltd
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number(s): 2012/240128; 2012/378129
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court

Date of Decision:

8 August 2014

Before:

Blackmore SC DCJ

File Number(s):

2012/240128; 2012/371829

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with R A Hulme J.
HARRISON J: I agree with R A Hulme J.
R A HULME J: Andrew Nicholas Almada (“the applicant”) was sentenced by his Honour Judge Blackmore SC in the Sydney District Court on 8 August 2014 in respect of an offence of dealing with money in excess of $100,000 with such money being reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime.
The offence is contrary to s 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) and the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 3 years and/or a fine of 180 penalty units.
The applicant asked that his guilt in respect of a further offence be taken into account: an offence of attempting to move out of Australia without a report a sum of cash being greater than $10,000, namely $200,000. That was an offence contrary to s 53(1)(a)(ii) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 2 years and/or a fine of…

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 Almada v R

Details

AGLC: Almada v R [2015] NSWCCA 19
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 19
Decision Date: 25 February 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Almada v R, the appellant sought to appeal against a sentence imposed for a money laundering offence, arguing that there was an error in the assessment of the offender's objective criminality. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the concessions made by the appellant's counsel during the sentencing hearing were binding and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the trial judge had erred in assessing the offender's prospects of rehabilitation and the importance of general deterrence in the context of the appellant's prior history of drug abuse and his status under a good behaviour bond at the time of the offence.

The High Court noted that the appellant's counsel had conceded that the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation were poor, and this concession was binding on the appellant in the appeal. The Court held that the assessment of the offender's prospects of rehabilitation was within the discretion of the trial judge, and no error had been established in this regard. Furthermore, the Court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in cases involving money laundering offences, especially given the appellant's history of drug-related issues. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant's objective criminality and the need for general deterrence.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in the trial judge's assessment of the appellant's objective criminality or prospects of rehabilitation. The Court affirmed the importance of general deterrence in sentencing for money laundering offences and upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appellant's appeal was therefore unsuccessful, and the original sentence was maintained.

Orders