Legal Research
Cases
R v Anquetil

R v Anquetil

Case [2020] NSWSC 995 31 July 2020

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Anquetil [2020] NSWSC 995
Hearing dates: 30 July 2020
Date of orders: 31 July 2020
Decision date: 31 July 2020
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
(1) For count 1, being an offence contrary to s 135.4(3) of the Criminal Code, the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 4 years and 8 months commencing on 31 July 2020 and expiring on 30 March 2025.
(2) For count 2, being an offence contrary to s 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code, the offender is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years to date from 31 January 2022 and expiring on 30 January 2028.
(3) Pursuant to s 19AB(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 the Court fixes a single non-parole period of 5 years, expiring on 30 July 2025.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – federal offenders – conspiracy to cause loss to the Commonwealth – significant loss to the Commonwealth – persistent course of conduct – early plea of guilty – [redacted] – good prospects of rehabilitation

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), Pt IB, ss 16A(1), 16A(2), [redacted], 16BA, 16F, 17A
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), Schedule ss 135.4(3), 400.3(1)
Evidence Act1995 (NSW), ss 136, 191
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth), ss 320(b)

Cases Cited:
AB v R [2013] NSWCCA 333
Attorney-General’s Application Under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1991 (No 1 of 2002) (2002) 56 NSWLR 146; [2002] NSWCCA 518
Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Afiouny [2014] NSWCCA 176
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1; [2011] VSCA 145
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v KMD [2015] VSCA 255; (2015) 254 A Crim R 244
Ha v R [2008] NSWCCA 141
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Issakidis v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 302
Kristensen v R [2018] NSWCCA 189
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
McKinnon v R [2020] NSWCCA 106
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57
R v Agius; R v Zerafa [2012] NSWSC 978; (2012) 87 ATR 528
R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268
R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430
R v Host [2015] WASCA 23; (2015) 248 A Crim R 352
R v Issakidis [2018] NSWSC 378
R v Kitson [2019] NSWSC 1109
R v Lamella [2014] NSWCCA 122
R v Ly [2014] NSWCCA 78; (2014) 241 A Crim R 192
R v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284; [2004] NSWCCA 7
Shi v R [2014] NSWCCA 276; (2014) 246 A Crim R 273
Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4

Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Simon Paul Anquetil (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
S Dowling SC with R Sharp (Crown)
P Strickland SC with P…

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 Anquetil

Details

AGLC: R v Anquetil [2020] NSWSC 995
Case: [2020] NSWSC 995
Decision Date: 31 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Anquetil, the defendant was found guilty of conspiracy to cause loss to the Commonwealth. The court had to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant's persistent course of conduct which had resulted in significant loss to the Commonwealth. The defendant pleaded guilty early, which was considered during sentencing. The court was also required to assess the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court included the nature and extent of the loss caused by the defendant's actions, the relevance of the defendant's early guilty plea, and the prospects of the defendant's rehabilitation. The court had to balance these factors to determine an appropriate sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offence while also considering the possibility of rehabilitation.

The court considered the significant loss to the Commonwealth caused by the defendant's actions, noting the persistence and severity of the conduct. It also acknowledged the defendant's early guilty plea, which was seen as a mitigating factor. The court weighed these factors against the defendant's good prospects of rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined that the sentence should reflect both the gravity of the offence and the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation. The outcome was a sentence that was both punitive and rehabilitative, aiming to address the loss caused while also providing the defendant with an opportunity to reform.

The final orders of the court included a custodial sentence for the defendant, with specific terms regarding the length and conditions of the sentence. The court also ordered that the defendant's rehabilitation prospects be closely monitored during the sentence. This decision highlights the importance of considering both punitive and rehabilitative aspects of sentencing in cases involving significant loss to the Commonwealth.

Orders