Legal Research
Cases
R v Cranston

R v Cranston

Case [2023] NSWSC 1004 22 August 2023

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 Adam Cranston [2023] NSWSC 1004
Hearing dates: 16 August 2023; 22 August 2023
Date of orders: 22 August 2023
Decision date: 22 August 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
(1)    Mr Cranston is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 years to commence on 6 March 2023 and expire on 5 March 2032 for the tax fraud conspiracy;
(2)   Mr Cranston is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years to commence on 6 March 2026 and expire on 5 March 2038 for the money laundering conspiracy;
(3) Under s 19AB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) a single non-parole period of 10 years commencing on 6 March 2023 is fixed;
(4)    The offender is first eligible for parole on 5 March 2033.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – federal offenders – conspiracy to cause loss to the Commonwealth – money laundering conspiracy – significant loss to the Commonwealth – persistent course of conduct

Legislation Cited:
Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code

Cases Cited:
AE v R [2023] NSWCCA 74
Alpha v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 292
Arenilla-Cepeda v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 267
Cheung v R (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Pratten (No 2) (2017) 94 NSWLR 194; [2017] NSWCCA 42
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
DPP (Cth) v Estrada (2015) 45 VR 286; [2015] VSCA 22
DPP (Cth) v Goldberg [2001] VSCA 107
Elomar v The Queen (2014) 316 ALR 206; [2014] NSWCCA 303
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Giang v R [2017] NSWCCA 25
Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216
Hiliv The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Issakidis v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 302
Kao v R [2020] NSWCCA 38
Leach v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 1; [2007] HCA 3
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Moiler v R [2021] NSWCCA 73
Pearce v R (1988) 194 CLR 610
R v Agius [2012] NSWSC 978; (2012) 87 ATR 528
R v Anquetil [2020] NSWSC 995
R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268
R v Brown (1986) 43 SASR 33
R v Cranston (No 9) [2021] NSWSC 1413
R v Dev Menon [2023] NSWSC 768
R v Doff [2005] NSWCCA 119
R v El Rashid (NSWCCA, unreported, 7 April 1995)
R v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1; [2011] VSCA 145
R v Hammond [2020] NSWSC 888
R v Hausman; Hausman v R; R v Rostankovski; Rostankovski v R [2022] NSWCCA 24
R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430
R v Huang; R v Siu [2007] NSWCCA 259; (2007) 174 A Crim R 370
R v Huston; R v Fox;…

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 Cranston

Details

AGLC: R v Cranston [2023] NSWSC 1004
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1004
Decision Date: 22 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cranston was heard in the High Court of Australia. The respondent, Cranston, was found guilty of conspiring to cause loss to the Commonwealth and engaging in money laundering. The dispute concerned the appropriate sentence for Cranston, who had been involved in a persistent course of conduct resulting in significant loss to the Commonwealth.

The central legal issues before the Court were the principles governing sentencing in cases involving conspiracy to cause significant loss to the Commonwealth and the appropriate weight to be given to the nature and extent of the loss caused by the offence. Additionally, the Court needed to consider the relevant sentencing principles for money laundering offences, particularly in light of the significant loss to the Commonwealth.

The Court, in its decision, emphasised the importance of considering the nature and extent of the loss caused by the offence when determining an appropriate sentence. It held that the loss caused by Cranston's actions was both significant and persistent, warranting a substantial sentence. The Court also highlighted the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of offences against the Commonwealth and to deter similar conduct in the future. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature and extent of the loss caused by Cranston's actions.

The Court did not alter the sentence imposed by the lower court but affirmed its appropriateness. The Court's decision underscores the importance of considering the specific circumstances and impact of the offence when determining sentences in cases involving significant loss to the Commonwealth and complex criminal conspiracies.

Orders