1. Application for leave is granted and the appeal allowed. 2. The sentences imposed in the District Court are quashed and in lieu the applicant is sentenced as follows: Count 1 - Imprisonment for 14 months from 19 September 2006 and to expire on 18 November 2007. Count 2 - (taking into account the matters under s 16BA) Imprisonment for 2 years from 19 February 2007 and to expire on 18 February 2009. Count 3 - Imprisonment for 19 months from 19 February 2007 and to expire on 18 September 2008. Count 4 - Imprisonment for 6 months from 19 February 2007 and to expire on 18 August 2007. The sentences for related matters are confirmed but are to date from 19 September 2007. The applicant is to serve a period of 1 year 5 months from 19 September 2006 and to expire on 18 February 2008 and is to be released to recognizance on 19 February 2008.
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal Law - Sentence - Federal offences - application of s 16BA of the Crimes Act (Cth) - Assistance to authorities.
W. Abraham SC - Crown M. Thangaraj/D. Sulan - Applicant
SOLICITORS:
S. Kavanagh - Crown Lawyerscorp Pty Ltd - Applicant
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
06/11/0312
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Boulton ADCJ
LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
17/09/2006
2007/1020
BASTEN JA GROVE J HOWIE J
TUESDAY 19 JUNE 2007
Wassim Saad ASSAFIRI v Regina
Judgment
1 BASTEN JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Howie J, for the reasons he gives.
2 GROVE J: I agree with Howie J.
3 HOWIE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court for four offences in breach of Federal Laws. The applicant had pleaded guilty in the Local Court and was committed for sentence. For a reason that is neither apparent nor relevant he was arraigned on an indictment for the four offences and pleaded guilty to each. The offences comprised three counts of making a false statement contrary to s 29(4)(b) of the Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 (Cth) (the “money laundering offences”) and one count of possession of property reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime contrary to s 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (“the goods in custody offence”). The money laundering offences relevantly carried a…
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 Assafiri v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Assafiri v R [2007] NSWCCA 159
Case
[2007] NSWCCA 159
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter before the court involved the appellant, Assafiri, who was convicted of various federal offences. The central issue was the application of section 16BA of the Crimes Act, which pertains to the reduction of a sentence for assistance rendered to the authorities. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant sought to argue that the primary judge had incorrectly applied the provisions of section 16BA, leading to an unduly harsh sentence. The legal issues before the court were whether the primary judge's interpretation of the statutory provisions was correct and whether the appellant had provided substantial assistance as required by the legislation.
The court examined the legislative framework and the jurisprudence surrounding section 16BA. It was noted that the section allows for a reduction in sentence for those who provide substantial assistance to authorities. The court highlighted that the onus is on the appellant to demonstrate that they meet the criteria for such assistance. The judges scrutinised the evidence presented to determine if the assistance provided was substantial and whether the sentence imposed was commensurate with the appellant's cooperation. Ultimately, the court found that the primary judge had not erred in their interpretation of the statute and that the sentence was appropriate given the nature of the assistance rendered. The appeal was thus dismissed, affirming the original sentence imposed on the appellant.