R v Hannan; Ex parte

[2018] QCA 201

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hannan; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2018] QCA 201

PARTIES:

R
v
HANNAN, Sarah McCarlie Muir
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 303 of 2017
SC No 1762 of 2017

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Attorney-General (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 27 November 2017 (Lyons SJA)

DELIVERED ON:

31 August 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 May 2018

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison and Philippides JJA

ORDERS:

1.     Appeal allowed.

2.     Set aside so much of the orders made on 27 November 2017 as wholly suspended the period of imprisonment for an operational period of three years.

3.     Order that the term of imprisonment imposed be suspended after serving five months.

4.     Otherwise affirm the orders made on 27 November 2017.

5.     Order that a Warrant issue for the arrest of the respondent, to lie in the Registry for seven days.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY INADEQUATE – where the respondent pleaded guilty to the offence of money laundering – where she was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment, wholly suspended with an operational period of three years – where a total of 12 days of presentence custody were declared under that sentence – where the Attorney-General submitted that the penalty imposed on the respondent did not reflect the seriousness of the offence and the applicable maximum penalty – where it was further submitted that the learned sentencing judge was overwhelmed by consideration of the impact on the children, at the expense of recognising the very serious offence involved in laundering about $650,000, where that was done with the full knowledge that the money constituted the proceeds of criminal activity – where it was submitted that actual incarceration of a period between six and 12 months was warranted – where the respondent submitted that the sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust as it was open to the learned sentencing judge to take into account the effect on the children of their mother’s imprisonment – where it was submitted the children would be deprived of parental care and likely to suffer severe hardship – whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – EFFECT OF SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT ON PRISONER – FAMILY CONSIDERATIONS – where the respondent’s husband was the head of a cannabis syndicate – where they had three children – where the appellant submitted that those who offend in a serious way cannot avoid incarceration by invoking family considerations – where the two older children were born whilst the respondent was knowingly engaged in criminal activity – where the third child was born after the respondent had been charged, when she and her husband were both facing the prospect of a long period of incarceration – where it was submitted that the two elder children possessed difficulties, namely a difficulty dealing with…