Legal Research
Cases
Linggo v R

Linggo v R

Case [2017] NSWCCA 67 13 April 2017

Discount for Guilty Plea

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Linggo v R [2017] NSWCCA 67
Hearing dates: 31 March 2017
Date of orders: 31 March 2017
Decision date: 13 April 2017
Before: Beazley P;
Walton J;
R A Hulme J
Decision:
1   Grant leave to appeal against sentence and allow the appeal;

2   Quash the sentences imposed in the District Court on 7 March 2016 and in lieu impose the following:

Count 1   Imprisonment for 18 months commencing 30 June 2015 and expiring 29 December 2016;

Count 2   Imprisonment for 2 years and 2 months commencing 30 December 2015 and expiring 28 February 2018;
3   Direct the appellant be released on 3 April 2017 upon giving security without surety in the sum of $1,000 and entering into a recognizance to be of good behaviour for the period 3 April 2017 until 28 February 2018.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against sentence – whether sentencing judge made mathematical error in calculating sentence imposed – applicant convicted of offences contrary to Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 400.9(1) and Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) – sentencing judge stated that intention was to impose sentence of imprisonment for three years – sentence of three years and three months imposed – whether appeal court should resentence
CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against sentence – whether sentencing judge erred by giving inadequate discount for guilty plea – discount in range of 4 per cent to 10 per cent – matters to be considered when calculating discount pursuant to Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2)(g) – whether discount to be given for utilitarian value of the plea – circumstances in which discount to be given for facilitating the course of justice – timing of the plea – strength of the Crown case – appropriate range for discount
Legislation Cited: Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: C v R (2013) 229 A Crim R 233; [2013] NSWCCA 81
Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339; [2002] HCA 6
DPP (Cth) v Thomas [2016] VSCA 237
Ellis v R [2015] NSWCCA 262
Gow v DPP (Cth) (2015) 298 FLR 397; [2015] NSWCCA 208
Isaac v R [2012] NSWCCA 195
Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37
Lee v R [2012] NSWCCA 123
Lehn v R (2016) 78 MVR 353; [2016] NSWCCA 255
Pham v R [2010] NSWCCA 208
R v Baleisuva [2004] NSWCCA 344
R v Harrington (2016) 11 ACTLR 215; [2016] ACTCA 10
R v Saleh [2015] NSWCCA 299
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383; [2000] NSWCCA 309
Tyler v The Queen; R v Chalmers (2007) 173 A Crim R 458; [2007] NSWCCA 247
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Leonard Dharmananda Linggo (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Buchen; G Huxley (Applicant)

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 Linggo v R

Details

AGLC: Linggo v The Queen [2017] NSWCCA 67
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 67
Decision Date: 13 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Linggo, applied for leave to appeal against his sentence, which was imposed by the sentencing judge following his conviction on charges under the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) and the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth). The sentencing judge stated that the intention was to impose a sentence of imprisonment for three years, but a sentence of three years and three months was actually imposed. The applicant argued that this discrepancy amounted to a mathematical error and that the appeal court should resentence him. Additionally, the applicant contended that the sentencing judge erred in the discount given for his guilty plea, which was in the range of 4 per cent to 10 per cent, rather than the 15 per cent he argued should have been applied.

The court was required to determine whether the sentencing judge had made a mathematical error in calculating the sentence and whether the discount for the guilty plea was adequate. The court also had to consider the matters to be taken into account when calculating the discount, as outlined in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2)(g). This included whether the discount should be given for the utilitarian value of the plea, for facilitating the course of justice, and the timing of the plea and the strength of the Crown case. The appropriate range for the discount was also considered.

The court held that the discrepancy in the sentence did not amount to a mathematical error, as the sentencing judge's intention was clear. The court also found that the discount for the guilty plea was within the appropriate range and that the sentencing judge had considered the relevant matters when calculating the discount. The applicant's application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and no order for re-sentencing was made.

Orders