R v Hannan; Ex parte

The matter before the court involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the respondent, who had pleaded guilty to the offence of money laundering. The respondent was sentenced to three years' imprisonment, wholly suspended with an operational period of three years. The Attorney-General argued that the penalty imposed did not reflect the seriousness of the offence and the applicable maximum penalty, and that the sentencing judge was overwhelmed by consideration of the impact on the children, at the expense of recognising the very serious offence involved. The respondent submitted that the sentence was not unreasonable or plainly unjust as it was open to the sentencing judge to take into account the effect on the children of their mother's imprisonment.

The court was required to decide whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether it was open to the sentencing judge to take into account the hardship caused to the respondent's children by her imprisonment. The court found that even allowing for the hesitance that the court might recognise in sending to custody someone who had been granted liberty, it would send entirely the wrong message to the community if offending of this kind and magnitude were not to attract the appropriate penalty. The court concluded that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the sentencing judge had not given sufficient weight to the seriousness of the offence.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the orders made on 27 November 2017 as wholly suspended the period of imprisonment for an operational period of three years, and ordered that the term of imprisonment imposed be suspended after serving five months. The court otherwise affirmed the orders made on 27 November 2017 and ordered that a Warrant issue for the arrest of the respondent, to lie in the Registry for seven days.