R v Jiao

Case [2015] NSWCCA 95 15 May 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Regina v Yi-Hua Jiao [2015] NSWCCA 95
Hearing dates: 6 May 2015
Date of orders: 15 May 2015
Decision date: 15 May 2015
Before: Ward JA; Johnson J; Schmidt J
Decision:
1.The appeal is upheld.
2.The sentence is quashed.
3.Ms Jiao is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 16 months commencing on 19 December 2014 and is to be released on 19 December 2015 upon Ms Jiao entering into a recognizance to be of good behaviour for a period of 4 months expiring on 18 March 2016.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – Crown appeal against sentence – federal offence – money laundering – offence under s 400.9(1) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) –whether sentence was manifestly inadequate – objective seriousness of offence– importance of general deterrence
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 19AC, 20
Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill (No. 2) 2009 (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) ss 400.3, 400.4, 400.5, 400.6, 400.7, 400.8, 400.9,
Cases Cited: Almada v R [2015] NSWCCA 19
Assafiri v R [2007] NSWCCA 159
Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
CMB v Attorney General for New South Wales [2015] HCA 9; 317 ALR 308
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Majeed v R [2013] VSCA 40
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Milne v R [2012] NSWCCA 24; 259 FLR 42
Milne v The Queen [2014] HCA 4; 252 CLR 149
R v Bugmy (No 2) [2014] NSWCCA 322
R v DH; R v AH [2014] NSWCCA 326
R v Ferrer-Esis (1991) 55 A Crim R 231
R v Guo; R v Qian [2010] NSWCCA 170; 201 A Crim R 403
R v Harris [2015] NSWCCA 81
R v Hernando [2002] NSWCCA 489; 136 A Crim R 451
R v Lee [2007] NSWCCA 234
R v Li [2010] NSWCCA 125; 202 A Crim R 195
R v Milne (No 1) [2010] NSWSC 932; 260 FLR 166
R v Nguyen [2013] NSWCCA 195; 234 A Crim R 324
R v Nguyen; R v Pham [2010] NSWCCA 238; 205 A Crim R 106
Shi v R [2014] NSWCCA 276
The Queen v De Simoni [1981] HCA 31; 147 CLR 383
The Queen v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; 199 CLR 270
Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Appellant)
Yi-Hua Jiao (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
RG Bromwich SC with BM Neild (Appellant)
Ms M Fanning (Respondent)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Appellant)
Lloyd Truman Sadiq (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/0023304
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court…

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 Jiao

Details

AGLC: R v Jiao [2015] NSWCCA 95
Case: [2015] NSWCCA 95
Decision Date: 15 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Jiao, was convicted for his involvement in a money laundering scheme, a federal offence under section 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code 1995. Jiao was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, which the Crown appealed, arguing that the sentence was manifestly inadequate given the objective seriousness of the offence. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether it appropriately balanced the objectives of general deterrence and specific deterrence.

The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed on Jiao for his involvement in the money laundering scheme was manifestly inadequate. The Crown argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the objective seriousness of the offence, which involved a significant amount of money and had serious implications for the integrity of the financial system. The Court also had to consider the principles of general and specific deterrence in determining the appropriate sentence.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentence imposed on Jiao was manifestly inadequate. The objective seriousness of the offence was underscored by the significant amount of money involved and the potential impact on the financial system. The Court emphasised that the sentence needed to reflect the seriousness of the crime and serve the purposes of general and specific deterrence. The Court acknowledged the need for a sentence that would appropriately deter both Jiao and others from engaging in similar criminal activities. Consequently, the Court allowed the Crown's appeal and varied the sentence to a term of imprisonment that better reflected the gravity of the offence.

Orders