R v Foster

Case [2008] QCA 90

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Foster [2008] QCA 90

PARTIES:

R
v
FOSTER, Peter Clarence
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 336 of 2007
SC No 1018 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

18 April 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 March 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Mackenzie AJA and Chesterman J
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 – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – applicant pleaded guilty to money laundering where the value of the money was greater than $100,000 – applicant was sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months – applicant organised the transfer of money into Australian bank accounts obtained fraudulently from the Bank of the Federated States of Micronesia – applicant laundered more than $300,000 over a period spanning a few months – applicant had long history of offences of dishonesty in many countries – sentence was not manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – ORDERS FOR COMPENSATION, REPARATION, RESTITUTION, FORFEITURE AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO DISPOSAL OF PROPERTY – REPARATION – applicant was ordered to pay reparation to the Bank of the Federated States of Micronesia of the outstanding amount of fraudulently obtained money – a reparation order is within the discretion of sentencing judge where loss to any person is a 'direct result' of the offence under s 21B(1)(d) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – each transfer of money by the applicant was capable of being a particular of the offences of fraud and money laundering – indictment charged money laundering only – the bank's loss was a direct result of the offence of money laundering – the sentencing judge had the power to make the reparation order

Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth), s 22(1)(a)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 21B(1), s 21B(2), s 21B(3)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 4.1, s 15.2, s 400.1(1), s 400.2(1), s 400.2(3), s 400.4(1)

Ansari v The Queen (2007) 173 A Crim R 112; [2007] NSWCCA 204, considered
Fortuna Seafoods P/L as trustee for the Rowley Family Trust v The Ship "Eternal Wind" [2005] QCA 405; Appeal Nos 1125 and 2068 of 2005, 4 November 2005, considered
Kaplan v Lee-Archer [2007] 15 VR 405; [2007] VSCA 42, applied
Liaver v Errington [2003] QCA 5; Appeal No 210 of 2002, 31 January 2003, considered
R v Huang and Siu (2007) 174 A Crim R 370; [2007] NSWCCA 259, considered
Perre v Apand Pty Ltd (1999) 198 CLR 180; [1999] HCA 36, considered

COUNSEL:

A J Glynn SC for the applicant
G P Long SC…

Continue reading R v Foster

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Foster [2008] QCA 90
Case
[2008] QCA 90
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, who pleaded guilty to money laundering involving funds exceeding $100,000, was sentenced to four and a half years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and three months. The applicant had arranged the transfer of money into Australian bank accounts that were obtained fraudulently from the Bank of the Federated States of Micronesia, laundering over $300,000 over several months. The applicant's criminal history was extensive, involving multiple offences of dishonesty across various countries. The primary legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant contended that the sentence was disproportionate, given the circumstances of the case.

The court considered the severity of the offence, the applicant's criminal history, and the need for general deterrence. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was within the range that could be considered appropriate for such a serious offence. The court further considered the reparation order, which required the applicant to compensate the Bank of the Federated States of Micronesia for the amount of money fraudulently obtained. This reparation order was authorised under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), which allows for such orders where the loss to any person is a direct result of the offence. The court confirmed that each transfer of money by the applicant was capable of being a particular of the offences of fraud and money laundering, and thus the bank's loss was a direct result of the offence of money laundering. The sentencing judge had the authority to make the reparation order.

The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and the reparation order was appropriately made under the relevant legislative provisions. The court upheld the sentence and the reparation order, concluding that the applicant's appeal against sentence did not succeed.

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.