R v Kefford - [2022] QCA 81

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Kefford [2022] QCA 81

PARTIES:

R
v
KEFFORD, Russell Laurence
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 34 of 2022
DC No 447 of 2021

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh – Date of Sentence: 21 January 2022 (Chowdhury DCJ)

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

19 May 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 May 2022

JUDGES:

Morrison and Mullins JJA and Kelly J

ORDER:

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly engaging in money laundering – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years to be suspended after ten months for an operational period of four years – where the money laundering occurred over a period of approximately 14 months and involved $2,124,747.63 – where the applicant was issued with a warning notice in relation to money laundering years before the subject offending – where the applicant ought reasonably to have known that the laundered money was tainted property – where the learned sentencing judge took a psychologist’s report into account in discounting the head sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances

R v Hannan; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2019] 2 Qd R 213; [2018] QCA 201, distinguished

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
C W Wallis for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondents

MORRISON JA: I will ask Justice Kelly to give his reasons first.

KELLY J: On 19 October 2021, the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly engaging in money laundering. On 21 January 2022, he was sentenced to imprisonment for four years to be suspended after 10 months with an operational period of four years. He applies for leave to appeal against that sentence on the ground that the sentencing judge failed to adequately take into account cumulative matters of mitigation and imposed a sentence that was manifestly excessive.

The applicant was sentenced by reference to an agreed statement of facts. The money laundering occurred over a period of approximately 14 months between October 2018 and December 2019. The amount of money laundered totalled $2,124,747.63. He was aged between 63 and 65 years of age at the time of the offending.

Some two and a half years prior to the offending, in March 2016, the applicant came to the attention of police as a suspect in money laundering offences involving unknown persons in Malaysia. When interviewed by the police, he told them that he had been contacted by a person who informed him that he had won the lottery in Germany but that, in order to obtain the winnings, he needed to transfer amounts of money to the person, which he did. That person had convinced…

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 Kefford

Details

AGLC: R v Kefford [2022] QCA 81
Case: [2022] QCA 81
Decision Date: 19 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Kefford, the respondent appealed against his sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive. The money laundering offence, for which the respondent had pleaded guilty, spanned approximately 14 months and involved a substantial sum of $2,124,747.63. He was sentenced to imprisonment for four years, to be suspended after ten months, for an operational period of four years. The respondent had previously been issued a warning notice concerning money laundering, suggesting he ought to have reasonably known the funds were tainted. The sentencing judge considered a psychologist’s report in determining the sentence. The central legal issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the circumstances.

The court considered the principles governing appeals against sentence, specifically the circumstances under which a sentence may be deemed manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court noted the respondent's prior warning and the significant sum involved in the offence, but also considered the psychologist's report, which influenced the sentencing judge's decision. The court assessed the proportionality and appropriateness of the sentence within the established legal framework. It concluded that while the sentence was severe, it was not so disproportionate to the offence as to be manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the weight given to expert psychological evidence.

In light of the analysis, the court found that the sentence, while harsh, was not manifestly excessive. The appeal against sentence was thus refused. The court upheld the original sentencing decision, recognising the judge's careful consideration of the circumstances and the expert input received. The decision underscores the complexity of sentencing in serious financial crimes and the deference given to judicial assessments in such matters.

Orders

Orders of the court

The application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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.

CITATION:	R v Kefford [2022] QCA 81
PARTIES:	R v KEFFORD, Russell Laurence (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 34 of 2022 DC No 447 of 2021
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh – Date of Sentence: 21 January 2022 (Chowdhury DCJ)
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	19 May 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 May 2022
JUDGES:	Morrison and Mullins JJA and Kelly J
ORDER:	The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly engaging in money laundering – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years to be suspended after ten months for an operational period of four years – where the money laundering occurred over a period of approximately 14 months and involved $2,124,747.63 – where the applicant was issued with a warning notice in relation to money laundering years before the subject offending – where the applicant ought reasonably to have known that the laundered money was tainted property – where the learned sentencing judge took a psychologist’s report into account in discounting the head sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances R v Hannan; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2019] 2 Qd R 213; [2018] QCA 201, distinguished
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf C W Wallis for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondents