Meagher JA at [1] Simpson JA at [7] Schmidt J at [65]
Decision:
(1)Leave to appeal against sentence granted; (2)Appeal allowed, sentences imposed in respect of Counts 7 and 8 set aside; (3)In lieu thereof, the applicant be sentenced as follows: (a)On Count 10: confirm the sentence of imprisonment for a fixed term of 2 years commencing on 6 October 2011 and expiring on 5 October 2013; (b)On Count 9: confirm the sentence of imprisonment for a fixed term of 3 years but order that it commence on 6 April 2012 and expire on 5 April 2015; (c)On Court 11: confirm the sentence of imprisonment for 5 years and 6 months but order that it commence on 6 April 2013 and expire on 5 October 2018, with a non-parole period of 3 years to expire on 5 April 2016; (d)On Count 1: confirm the sentence of imprisonment for 7 years and 6 months but order that it commence on 6 January 2014 and expire on 5 July 2021, with a non-parole period of 5 years to expire on 5 January 2019; (e)On Counts 7 and 8: quash the sentences and impose sentences of imprisonment for 6 years and 6 months to commence on 6 October 2014 and expire on 5 April 2021, with non-parole periods of 4 years and 6 months to expire on 5 April 2019; (f) On Counts 5 and 6: confirm the sentences of imprisonment for 7 years but order that it commence on 6 October 2015 and expire on 5 October 2022, with a non-parole period of 5 years to expire on 5 October 2020; (g)On Count 3: confirm the sentence of imprisonment for 7 years but order that it commence on 6 April 2016 and expire on 5 April 2023, with a non-parole period of 5 years to expire on 5 April 2021; (h)On Count 2: confirm the sentence of imprisonment for 7 years but order that it commence on 6 April 2016 and expire on 5 April 2023, with a non-parole period of 5 years to expire on 5 April 2021; (i)On Count 4: confirm the sentence of imprisonment for 12 years but order that it commence on 6 October 2016 and expire on 5 October 2028, with a non-parole period of 7 years to expire on 5 October 2023. The total effective sentence is imprisonment made up of a non-parole period of 12 years with a balance of term of 5 years. The first date on which the applicant will be eligible for release on parole is 5 October 2023.
Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – whether sentencing judge failed to take into account early guilty pleas for various counts – whether sentencing judge erred in failing to take into account the applicant voluntarily disclosing 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 MRM v R
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
MRM v R [2015] NSWCCA 195
Case
[2015] NSWCCA 195
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, MRM, appealed against his sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland. MRM was convicted on various counts, including charges of fraud and money laundering. The appeal was brought before the Queensland Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the sentencing judge had erred in failing to adequately consider the applicant's early guilty pleas and his voluntary disclosure of conduct related to two of the counts. Additionally, the court was tasked with assessing whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.
The court began its analysis by examining whether the sentencing judge had appropriately taken into account the applicant's early guilty pleas. The applicant argued that his early admissions should have warranted a more lenient sentence, as it demonstrated remorse and cooperation with the authorities. The court found that the sentencing judge had failed to adequately weigh the significance of these early pleas, which resulted in an error that warranted consideration. Furthermore, the court considered the applicant's voluntary disclosure of conduct related to two counts, which was not sufficiently recognised by the sentencing judge. The court held that this voluntary disclosure was an important mitigating factor that should have been given greater weight.
After carefully reviewing the arguments and evidence presented, the court concluded that the sentencing judge had indeed erred in not appropriately considering the applicant's early guilty pleas and voluntary disclosure. The court also found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, given the mitigating factors that were not adequately weighed. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the applicant was resentenced to a lesser penalty. The court provided detailed reasoning for the new sentence, ensuring that it reflected the appropriate weight given to the mitigating factors.