R v Eckl

Case [2023] QSC 178 7 September 2023

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Eckl [2023] QSC 178

PARTIES:

R
v
Rossmani Eckl

FILE NO:

Indictment no 0206 of 2022

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court

DELIVERED ON:

7 September 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

22 June 2023

JUDGE:

Freeburn J

ORDERS:

1.   On count 1, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 2 years imprisonment.

2.   On count 2, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 3 years imprisonment.

3.   On count 3, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 2 years imprisonment.

4.   On count 4, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment.

5.   On count 5, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 18 months imprisonment.

6.   Those sentences are to be served concurrently and it is ordered that Rossmani Eckl be released forthwith upon her giving security by recognisance in the sum of $1000, on the conditions that she be of good behaviour for a period of 5 years and that she will undertake any counselling recommended by Ms Sara Jones for a period of 2 years.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – where after a 7-day trial, the defendant was convicted by jury of 5 counts of money laundering – where the defendant was self-represented during the trial – where the defendant’s role in the money laundering included receipt, and in two of the five counts, distribution – whether a term of imprisonment is necessary to protect the community – whether a suspended sentence would achieve both general and specific deterrence

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

Ansari v R [2007] NSWCCA 204
Betka v R; Ghazaoui v R; Hawchar v R [2020] NSWCCA 191
Chen v R [2009] NSWCCA 66
DPP v Carter (1997) 91 A Crim R 222
Huang v R [2018] NSWCCA 57
Ihemeje v R [2012] NSWCCA 269
Islam v R [2016] NSWCCA 233
Jimmy v R [2010] NSWCCA 60
Kabir v R [2020] NSWCCA 139
Lai v R [2011] NSWCCA 16
Maldonado v R [2009] NSWCCA 189
Mohamed v R [2022] VSCA 136
Nguyen v R [2010] NSWCCA 60
Nguyen v R [2011] NSWCCA 111
R v Byrne [2010] QCA 33
R v Constant (2016) 126 SASR 1
R v Columbus [2007] QCA 396
R v Davy [2017] QCA 312
R v Foster [2009] 1 Qd R 53
R v Huston, Fox & Henke; ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2011] QCA 350
R v Huang and Siu [2007] 174 A Crim R 370
R v Ibbetson [2020] QCA 214
R v Ly [2014] NSWCCA 78
R v Nguyen (2010) 204 A Crim R 246; [2010] NSWCCA 226
R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
R v PZ; ex parte Attorney-General [2005] QCA 459
R v Sinclair (1990) 51 A Crim R 418
R v UE [2016] QCA 058
R v Wing Cheong Li [2010] NSWCCA 125
R v Zerafa (2013) 235 A Crim R 265
Shi…

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 Eckl

Details

AGLC: R v Eckl [2023] QSC 178
Case: [2023] QSC 178
Decision Date: 7 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Eckl, the defendant, Rossmani Eckl, was convicted by a jury on five counts of money laundering following a 7-day trial. The defendant represented herself during the trial. The court was tasked with determining whether a term of imprisonment was necessary to protect the community and whether a suspended sentence would achieve both general and specific deterrence. The defendant's role in the money laundering activities involved receipt and, in two of the counts, distribution.

The court examined two categories of warnings provided to the defendant by law enforcement. The first category related to warnings given in 2015, which the Crown argued were relevant to the trial. However, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the defendant was adequately warned in 2015 or that she understood the warnings. The second category involved warnings given in January and July 2020, which the court accepted as timely. Despite these warnings, the court did not find that they indicated a high risk of re-offending or low prospects for rehabilitation. The court gave significant weight to a pre-sentencing report from a psychologist, which indicated that the defendant was at low risk of re-offending.

The court concluded that while a term of imprisonment was necessary to protect the community, a suspended sentence would adequately achieve both general and specific deterrence. The court sentenced Rossmani Eckl to a term of 2 years imprisonment for counts 1 and 3, 3 years for count 2, 12 months for count 4, and 18 months for count 5, to be served concurrently. The court ordered that Rossmani Eckl be released forthwith upon giving security by recognisance in the sum of $1000, on the conditions of good behaviour for 5 years and undertaking any recommended counselling for 2 years.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. On count 1, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 2 years imprisonment.

2. On count 2, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 3 years imprisonment.

3. On count 3, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 2 years imprisonment.

4. On count 4, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment.

5. On count 5, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 18 months imprisonment.

6. Those sentences are to be served concurrently and it is ordered that Rossmani Eckl be released forthwith upon her giving security by recognisance in the sum of $1000, on the conditions that she be of good behaviour for a period of 5 years and that she will undertake any counselling recommended by Ms Sara Jones for a period of 2 years.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Turning to the first category, the Crown’s reliance on the warning given in 2015 was a live issue in the trial. During the trial, the Crown admitted into evidence an interview between Ms Eckl and Detective Robertson. The Crown submitted that this interview proved the previous warnings police had given her in 2015 against engaging in money laundering. During an exchange I had with Detective Robertson in the trial, Detective Robertson conceded that she and Ms Eckl were at cross purposes when she put to Ms Eckl that she had previously engaged in money laundering in 2015. Mr Bolster and I had this exchange after Detective Robertson’s evidence: HIS HONOUR: But – sorry – the two 2015 incidents really concern me because it does seem as if the police officers and Ms Eckl were at cross purposes. She was saying – as I apprehended, she was saying, “I have lost money. Money has – my money has gone overseas”. Whereas the officer seemed to be saying – suggesting that she was receiving money from overseas, and I don’t know that that – because we don’t have any direct evidence about 2015, I’m not sure I can resolve any of that, can I? MR BOLSTER: No, at the moment your Honour can’t. I can tell your Honour that that will be a live issue if Ms Eckl gets into the witness box and there are issues that I want to pursue with her about that. [emphasis added] Ms Eckl did not give evidence so was not cross examined by Mr Bolster. It seems then, there is no evidence, or at least no sufficient evidence from which the court can conclude that Ms Eckl was actually given a warning or that she understood that she was being given a warning by police in 2015 in relation to money laundering. The highest it can sensibly be put is that there was no direct evidence about what happened in 2015, and, even taking into account the indirect evidence, there was a confused communication between the police and Ms Eckl in 2015. The second category of warnings comprise of a record of interview on 9 January 2020, before counts 4 and 5 were committed and police attendances at Ms Eckl’s residence on 13 July 2020 and 20 July 2020 prior to her committing count 5. I accept that the timing of these warnings was such that Ms Eckl should have been deterred from engaging in the latter counts on the indictment. However, I do not accept that these warnings suggest that Ms Eckl is at a high risk of re-offending or that she has low prospects of rehabilitation. There has been a significant amount of water that has passed under the bridge since those warnings in 2020. Ms Eckl has since undergone the criminal trial process, from which she was diagnosed with acute stress reaction. She has also since attended upon Ms Sara Jones, psychologist, who provided the court with a pre-sentencing report dated 4 May 2023. The pre-sentencing report, contrary to the Crown submissions, suggests that Ms Eckl is at low risk of re-offending. This report ought to be given considerable weight as it assesses Ms Eckl’s risk of re-offending at the time of sentencing in 2023, as opposed to in the midst of the criminal conduct engaged in by Ms Eckl in 2020.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

Actions

Citations

R v Eckl [2023] QSC 178

Most Recent Citation

CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Tan & Chin [2024] VCC 1273

Cases Citing This Decision

Lendlease Corporation Limited v Pallas [2025] HCA 19
Citation 1 (Para 2)

…; Lo Pilato v Kamy Saeedi Lawyers Pty Ltd (2017) 249 FCR 69 at 114 [234]; Chel v Fairfax Media Publications [No 6] [2017] NSWSC 230 at [37]; R v Eckl [2023] QSC 178 at [68]-[72]. See also Favelle Mort Ltd v Murray (1976) 133 CLR 580 at 591.…
CDirector of Public Prosecutions v Tan & Chin [2024] VCC 1273
Citation 2

…ffence), but which involved a significant amount of money and limited financial gain.[14] [14] R v Eckl [2023] QSC 178; Lami v R [2021] NSWCCA 295; Cox (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2016] VSCA 134; Nguyen v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 152; Nguyen v R [2011] NSWCCA 111; R v Huang [2007] NSWCCA 259 147I also note that cou…

See all citing cases →

Cases Cited

Ahmed Mohamed v The Queen [2022] VSCA 136
Citation 1 (Para 4)

…ld be applied according to its terms. Totaan has now been followed by the Victorian Court of Appeal in Mohamed v R. [45] [44][2022] NSWCCA 7. [45][2022] VSCA 136 at [88]-[93].…
Hanna v R [2022] NSWCCA 7
Citation 2 (Para 4)

…that s 16A(2)(p) should be applied according to its terms. Totaan has now been followed by the Victorian Court of Appeal in Mohamed v R. [45] [44][2022] NSWCCA 7. [45][2022] VSCA 136 at [88]-[93].…
R v Ibbetson [2020] QCA 214
Citation 3 (Para 3)

…6 at [31]. [43]See R v Huston, Fox & Henke; ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2011] QCA 350 at [45]-[56]. See also R v Ibbetson [2020] QCA 214 at [29].…
Betka v R; Ghazaoui v R; Hawchar v R [2020] NSWCCA 191
Citation 4 (Para 4)

…structuring cash deposited into various bank accounts across Sydney in amounts less than $10,000 so as to avoid the same reporting requirements. [62][2020] NSWCCA 191. [63][2020] NSWCCA 191 at [2].…
Kabir v R [2020] NSWCCA 139
Citation 5 (Para 4)

…”. [99][2016] VSCA 228. This case also involved drug trafficking, which raises some different considerations. [100][2009] 1 Qd R 53. [101][2020] NSWCCA 139.…
Huang v R [2018] NSWCCA 57
Citation 6 (Para 12)

…ed service using a false customer name, contrary to s 140(1) of the Act. The maximum sentence under s 140(1) is 2 years imprisonment.[68] [67][2018] NSWCCA 57. [68][2018] NSWCCA 57 at [12], [13].…
R v Davy [2017] QCA 312
Citation 7 (Para 4)

…btain any legal or other assistance at all. Of course, an accused person does not have a right to representation in a criminal trial.[9] [9] R v Davy [2017] QCA 312: However, the availability of legal representation is an important aspect of a fairly conducted criminal trial. As Mason CJ and McHugh J observed in…
Islam v R [2016] NSWCCA 233
Citation 8 (Para 1)

…The Crown also referred the court to two additional cases, not listed in its schedule. Those cases were Islam v R [79] and R v Byrne .[80] [79][2016] NSWCCA 233. [80][2010] QCA 33.…
Minh Phat Truong v The Queen [2016] VSCA 228
Citation 9 (Para 4)

…4 false income tax returns. The money was used to support what was described by the sentencing judge as an “ extravagant lifestyle ”. [99][2016] VSCA 228. This case also involved drug trafficking, which raises some different considerations. [100][2009] 1 Qd R 53. [101][2020] NSWCCA 139.…
R v Constant [2016] SASCFC 87
Citation 10 (Para 5)

…exceptional?[47] [footnotes omitted] [46] Totaan v R draws on the powerful dissent of Beech-Jones J in R v Zerafa (2013) 235 A Crim R 265. [47](2016) 126 SASR 1 at [59].…
R v UE [2016] QCA 58
Citation 11 (Para 1)

…ender will be required.[50] [citations omitted]. [49]Defendant submissions at [24]; Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s 501(3A); 501(6)(a); 501(7)(a)-(c). [50][2016] QCA 058.…
Shi v R [2014] NSWCCA 276
Citation 12 (Para 20)

…(Count 9); and $2,660,505 (Count 10). The maximum penalty for each of those counts was imprisonment for 3 years or 180 penalty units, or both. [77][2014] NSWCCA 276. [78]Of course, the nature of this offence is different from the counts before this court. The offence under s 400.9(1) merely requires that the defend…
R v Ly [2014] NSWCCA 78
Citation 13 (Para 4)

…. On appeal a head sentence of 3 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 2 months was affirmed. [97][2012] NSWCCA 269. [98][2014] NSWCCA 78. The frauds here involved identity thefts of 21 taxpayers and the lodgement of 24 false income tax returns. The money was used to support what was described…
R v Zerafa [2013] NSWCCA 222
Citation 14 (Para 5)

…m and when is a departure from that norm exceptional?[47] [footnotes omitted] [46] Totaan v R draws on the powerful dissent of Beech-Jones J in R v Zerafa (2013) 235 A Crim R 265. [47](2016) 126 SASR 1 at [59].…
Ihemeje v R [2012] NSWCCA 269
Citation 15 (Para 4)

…had no criminal history. On appeal a head sentence of 3 years and 3 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 2 months was affirmed. [97][2012] NSWCCA 269. [98][2014] NSWCCA 78. The frauds here involved identity thefts of 21 taxpayers and the lodgement of 24 false income tax returns. The money was used to suppo…
Nguyen v R [2012] NSWCCA 152
Citation 16 (Para 4)

…nd taking steps to open such an account. On appeal, a head sentence of 6 years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 7 months was affirmed. [95][2012] NSWCCA 152. The applicant dealt with $9.9 million over 23 days in 6 episodes while acting as the Sydney representative of a Melbourne-based remittance agency. She e…
R v Huston; ex parte; R v Fox; ex parte; R v Henke; ex parte [2011] QCA 350
Citation 17 (Para 1)

…erity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence .”[18] [18] R v Huston, Fox & Henke; ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2011] QCA 350 at [22].…
Nguyen v R [2011] NSWCCA 111
Citation 18 (Para 1)

…eriousness of the criminality, to take into account the fact that the offending involved 234 separate transactions totalling almost $2 million. [89][2011] NSWCCA 111.…
Quoc Viet LAI v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 16
Citation 19 (Para 4)

…[97] R v Ly, [98] Truong v R, [99] R v Foster [100] and Kabir v R. [101] [92](2010) 204 A Crim R 246; [2010] NSWCCA 226, especially at [58]-[59]. [93][2011] NSWCCA 16. The offender was a senior pilot with Vietnam Airlines. He was convicted after trial. The scheme involved him (and other pilots) receiving money in c…
R v Nguyen [2010] NSWCCA 226
Citation 20 (Para 4)

…] Nguyen v R ,[95] Jimmy v R, [96] Ihemeje v R, [97] R v Ly, [98] Truong v R, [99] R v Foster [100] and Kabir v R. [101] [92](2010) 204 A Crim R 246; [2010] NSWCCA 226, especially at [58]-[59]. [93][2011] NSWCCA 16. The offender was a senior pilot with Vietnam Airlines. He was convicted after trial. The scheme invol…
R v Li [2010] NSWCCA 125
Citation 21 (Para 3)

…ct the sentence. There will be a range of possible strengths of belief, rising to certain knowledge, as in Maldonado .[91] [emphasis added] [90][2010] NSWCCA 125. [91]This last reference is to Maldonado v R [2009] NSWCCA 189.…
Jimmy v R [2010] NSWCCA 60
Citation 22 (Para 4)

…guilty and had a strong subjective case. On appeal a head sentence of 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months was affirmed. [96][2010] NSWCCA 60. Here, the offender was charged with an offence under s 400.4(1) of dealing with money intending that the money will become an instrument of crime. The charg…
R v Byrne [2010] QCA 33
Citation 23 (Para 1)

…eferred the court to two additional cases, not listed in its schedule. Those cases were Islam v R [79] and R v Byrne .[80] [79][2016] NSWCCA 233. [80][2010] QCA 33.…
Maldonado v R [2009] NSWCCA 189
Citation 24 (Para 3)

…belief, rising to certain knowledge, as in Maldonado .[91] [emphasis added] [90][2010] NSWCCA 125. [91]This last reference is to Maldonado v R [2009] NSWCCA 189.…
Chen v R [2009] NSWCCA 66
Citation 25 (Para 4)

…respect to the extent of the applicant’s awareness, both in relation to the source of the funds and the motive behind the transfers to Vietnam. [94][2009] NSWCCA 66. The offence was conspiring to deal with money to the value of $1 million or more being the proceeds of crime reckless as to the fact that the money wa…
R v. Columbus [2007] QCA 396
Citation 26 (Para 3)

…ursuit of easy money inspired by greed, rather than a response to financial pressure or real need. ”[39] [38]Crown submissions at [78]. [39][2007] QCA 396 at [27]. This case is discussed in more detail below: it is the third of the Crown’s schedule of cases.…
R v Ansari [2007] NSWCCA 204
Citation 27 (Para 1)

…, Z and the appellants were arrested before Z could obtain the money which apparently was to come from the sale of drugs.[59] [58][2007] NSWCCA 204. [59][2007] NSWCCA 204 at [42]-[47].…
Assafiri v R [2007] NSWCCA 159
Citation 28 (Para 2)

…he laundering. The prosecution may not be able to show that the offender knew of the source of the money or its ultimate destination. In Assafiri v R [2007] NSWCCA 159 an analogy was drawn between money laundering offences and drug importations in that both types of offences usually reveal a hierarchy of persons inv…
R v PZ; ex parte Attorney-General [2005] QCA 459
Citation 29 (Para 2)

…er family. [106](1982) 30 SASR 212 at 212-213. This principle was accepted by the Queensland Court of Appeal in R v PZ; ex parte Attorney-General [2005] QCA 459 at [34].…
R v Osenkowski [2005] SASC 142
Citation 30 (Para 2)

…ing and proper treatment of Ms Eckl’s personality disorder is likely to lead to pro-social development and continued support for her family. [106](1982) 30 SASR 212 at 212-213. This principle was accepted by the Queensland Court of Appeal in R v PZ; ex parte Attorney-General [2005] QCA 459 at [34].…
Weininger v The Queen [2003] HCA 14
Citation 31 (Para 4)

…a broad sense as matters that are ‘relevant and known to the court’ under s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). See Weininger v The Queen (2003) 212 CLR 629 at [21].…
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54
Citation 32 (Para 2)

…no evidence before the court as to the organisation behind the offence, the source of the funds or the ultimate use to made of them: see R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 at [19]. [emphasis added]…

Legislation Cited

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) 16BA
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth) 501(3A)
2 mentions (from Para 1)
Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 2)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 16)
Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 15)
Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 1)
Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth)
1 mention (from Para 12)

CITATION:	R v Eckl [2023] QSC 178
PARTIES:	R v Rossmani Eckl
FILE NO:	Indictment no 0206 of 2022
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court
DELIVERED ON:	7 September 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	22 June 2023
JUDGE:	Freeburn J
ORDERS:	1. On count 1, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 2 years imprisonment. 2. On count 2, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 3 years imprisonment. 3. On count 3, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 2 years imprisonment. 4. On count 4, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 12 months imprisonment. 5. On count 5, Rossmani Eckl is sentenced to a term of 18 months imprisonment. 6. Those sentences are to be served concurrently and it is ordered that Rossmani Eckl be released forthwith upon her giving security by recognisance in the sum of $1000, on the conditions that she be of good behaviour for a period of 5 years and that she will undertake any counselling recommended by Ms Sara Jones for a period of 2 years.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – where after a 7-day trial, the defendant was convicted by jury of 5 counts of money laundering – where the defendant was self-represented during the trial – where the defendant’s role in the money laundering included receipt, and in two of the five counts, distribution – whether a term of imprisonment is necessary to protect the community – whether a suspended sentence would achieve both general and specific deterrence Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) Migration Act 1958 (Cth) Ansari v R [2007] NSWCCA 204 Betka v R; Ghazaoui v R; Hawchar v R [2020] NSWCCA 191 Chen v R [2009] NSWCCA 66 DPP v Carter (1997) 91 A Crim R 222 Huang v R [2018] NSWCCA 57 Ihemeje v R [2012] NSWCCA 269 Islam v R [2016] NSWCCA 233 Jimmy v R [2010] NSWCCA 60 Kabir v R [2020] NSWCCA 139 Lai v R [2011] NSWCCA 16 Maldonado v R [2009] NSWCCA 189 Mohamed v R [2022] VSCA 136 Nguyen v R [2010] NSWCCA 60 Nguyen v R [2011] NSWCCA 111 R v Byrne [2010] QCA 33 R v Constant (2016) 126 SASR 1 R v Columbus [2007] QCA 396 R v Davy [2017] QCA 312 R v Foster [2009] 1 Qd R 53 R v Huston, Fox & Henke; ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2011] QCA 350 R v Huang and Siu [2007] 174 A Crim R 370 R v Ibbetson [2020] QCA 214 R v Ly [2014] NSWCCA 78 R v Nguyen (2010) 204 A Crim R 246; [2010] NSWCCA 226 R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 R v PZ; ex parte Attorney-General [2005] QCA 459 R v Sinclair (1990) 51 A Crim R 418 R v UE [2016] QCA 058 R v Wing Cheong Li [2010] NSWCCA 125 R v Zerafa (2013) 235 A Crim R 265 Shi…