R v Christensen - [2006] QCA 197

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Christensen [2006] QCA 197

PARTIES:

R
v
CHRISTENSEN, Jeff Soborg
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 77 of 2006
SC No 762 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

7 June 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 June 2006

JUDGES:

de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P & Keane JA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – where applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of money laundering – sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment suspended after six months for an operational period of three years – whether the sentence was disproportionate to those of the co-offenders

Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 151

The following cases were cited:
R v Daniel Peter Dewar (Mackenzie J, 09/02/00)
R v Gadaloff [1998] QCA 458; CA No 384 of 1998, 23 November 1998
R v Powell [1999] QCA 416; CA No 173 of 1999. 4 October 1999
R v Steven Geoffrey Scott (Mackenzie J, 14/05/93)

COUNSEL:

T D Martin SC with S R Lewis for the applicant
R G Martin SC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Gleeson Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant who seeks leave to appeal against sentence pleaded guilty to the offence of money laundering and was on the 20th of March 2006 sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment suspended after six months for an operational period of three years.

At the time of committing the offences the applicant was 26 years of age. The period covered by the indictment is December 2003 to August 2004. In November 2001, he had been sentenced for the possession of powder containing 165.637 grams of pure methylamphetamine, and trafficking in methylamphetamine. He was then sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment. His co-offender in that trafficking operation was his brother Kim, who was on the same day sentenced to 10 years' imprisonment. As evident from the reasons of the Court of Appeal, dismissing applications for leave to appeal against those sentences, the trafficking operation was of major proportion: over a four year period it generated profit of the order of $500,000. The motivation was purely commercial. Kim had enlisted the assistance of the applicant when Kim realised that he, Kim, was the subject of a police investigation.

Although a pecuniary penalty order was made against Kim in that amount of $500,000, a considerable part of that sum remained unaccounted for. Kim concealed its whereabouts. He set about disbursing the money from within prison by enlisting the support of others, including the present applicant. Kim thereby was able to deal with approximately $120,000.

This applicant arranged for the disposal of the total of $27,000 of that sum.…

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 Christensen

Details

AGLC: R v Christensen [2006] QCA 197
Case: [2006] QCA 197
Decision Date: 7 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Christensen involved the defendant, Christensen, who pleaded guilty to the offence of money laundering. The court sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment, suspended after six months, for an operational period of three years. Following this, Christensen applied to the court to reduce his sentence, arguing that it was disproportionate to the sentences received by his co-offenders. The case reached the higher court to determine whether the sentence was indeed disproportionate and to consider the application for leave to appeal.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the sentence imposed on Christensen was disproportionate when compared to the sentences of his co-offenders. The court needed to consider the principles of sentencing, particularly the requirement for consistency and proportionality in sentencing. It also had to examine the specific circumstances of Christensen's involvement in the crime and the impact of his guilty plea.

In delivering its judgment, the court carefully examined the sentences given to Christensen's co-offenders, considering the nature and extent of their involvement in the crime. The court also evaluated the mitigating factors presented by Christensen, including his guilty plea and any other relevant personal circumstances. After a thorough analysis, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was proportionate and appropriate in the context of the overall case. The court found that Christensen's sentence was neither excessive nor disproportionate compared to those of his co-offenders.

Consequently, the court refused Christensen's application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The decision confirmed the original sentence and maintained the balance and consistency required in criminal sentencing.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Christensen [2006] QCA 197
PARTIES:	R v CHRISTENSEN, Jeff Soborg (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 77 of 2006 SC No 762 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	7 June 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	7 June 2006
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, McMurdo P & Keane JA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – where applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of money laundering – sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment suspended after six months for an operational period of three years – whether the sentence was disproportionate to those of the co-offenders Corrective Services Act 2000 (Qld), s 151 The following cases were cited: R v Daniel Peter Dewar (Mackenzie J, 09/02/00) R v Gadaloff [1998] QCA 458; CA No 384 of 1998, 23 November 1998 R v Powell [1999] QCA 416; CA No 173 of 1999. 4 October 1999 R v Steven Geoffrey Scott (Mackenzie J, 14/05/93)
COUNSEL:	T D Martin SC with S R Lewis for the applicant R G Martin SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Gleeson Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent