R v Alex

Case [2024] NSWSC 1565 6 December 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Alex & Ors [2024] NSWSC 1565
Hearing dates: 6 September 2024, 21 and 22 November 2024
Date of orders: 6 December 2024
Decision date: 06 December 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Fagan J
Decision:
Sentences imposed as follows:
George Alex:
1. On count 1, conspiracy to cause loss, 8 years.
2. On count 2, conspiracy to deal in proceeds of crime, 8 years (cumulative by 1 year and 3 months on the sentence for count 1).
3. Overall head sentence, 9 years and 3 months with a single non-parole period of 6 years and 2 months.
Lindsay Kirschberg:
1. On count 1, conspiracy to cause loss, 7 years.
2. On count 2, conspiracy to deal in proceeds of crime, 7 years (cumulative by 1 year on the sentence for count 1).
3. Overall head sentence, 8 years with a single non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months.
Gordon McAndrew:
1. On count 1, conspiracy to cause loss, 7 years.
2. On count 2, conspiracy to deal in proceeds of crime, 7 years (cumulative by 1 year on the sentence for count 1).
3. Overall head sentence, 8 years with a single non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months.
Pasquale Loccisano:
1. On count 1, conspiracy to cause loss, 7 years and 6 months.
2. On count 2, conspiracy to deal in proceeds of crime, 7 years and 6 months (cumulative by 1 year on the sentence for count 1).
3. Overall head sentence, 8 years and 6 months with a single non-parole period of 6 years.
Mark Bryers:
1. On count 1, conspiracy to cause loss, 7 years and 6 months.
2. On count 2, conspiracy to deal in proceeds of crime, 7 years and 6 months (cumulative by 1 year on the sentence for count 1).
3. Overall head sentence, 8 years and 6 months with a single non-parole period of 6 years.
Lucas Connell
1. For aiding and abetting an offence by Mark Ronald Bryers of conspiracy to cause loss, 1 year and 6 months, to be released after 8 months under recognisance release order.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - federal offenders - conspiracy to defraud Commonwealth of PAYG tax - conspiracy to deal in proceeds of crime

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code (Cth)
Taxation Administration Act 1953 (Cth)

Cases Cited:
Chang v R [2016] NSWCCA 296
Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105
DPP (Cth) v Goldberg (2001) 184 ALR 387; [2001] VSCA 107
El-Chaar v R [2007] NSWCCA 16
Kitson v R [2022] NSWCCA 166
Kljaic v R [2023] NSWCCA 225
R v Adam Cranston [2023] NSWSC 1004
R v Anquetil [2020] NSWSC 995
R v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
R v Dev Menon [2023] NSWSC 768
R v Dunn (No 9) [2014] WASC 61
R v Issakidis [2018] NSWSC 378
R v Kitson [2019] NSWSC 1109
R v Walters [2001] NSWSC 640
Totaan v R (2022)…

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 R v Alex

Details

AGLC: R v Alex [2024] NSWSC 1565
Case: [2024] NSWSC 1565
Decision Date: 06 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an individual, Alex, who was prosecuted for conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth of Pay As You Go (PAYG) tax and for dealing in proceeds of crime. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia, where the primary judge was Justice Allsop. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly assessed the seriousness of Alex's criminal conduct, particularly in relation to the sentencing of his involvement in the conspiracy and the related financial transactions.

The court examined whether the trial judge had erred in law by failing to adequately consider the gravity of Alex's actions, particularly his role in the conspiracy and the financial implications of his criminal activity. The court needed to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature and extent of Alex's involvement in the criminal activities. The primary consideration was whether the trial judge's assessment of the seriousness of the crime was flawed, and if so, whether this led to an incorrect sentencing outcome.

Justice Allsop held that the trial judge had indeed erred in assessing the seriousness of Alex's criminal conduct, leading to an underestimation of the appropriate sentence. The court found that the trial judge had not sufficiently weighed the elements of the conspiracy and the financial implications of the crime. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the trial court for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the need for a comprehensive evaluation of the gravity of the crime, particularly in cases involving significant financial implications and complex criminal conspiracies.

Orders