(1) For the 2012 conspiracy, Mr Millner is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years commencing on 13 July 2023 and expiring on 12 July 2028.
(2) For the 2013 conspiracy, Mr Millner is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years commencing on 13 July 2025 and expiring on 12 July 2031.
(3) Under s 19AB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), a single non-parole period of four years and six months commencing on 13 July 2023 is fixed in relation to Mr Millner’s sentence. Mr Millner will be first eligible for parole on 12 January 2028.
(4) For the 2012 conspiracy, Mr Kelu is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years commencing on 23 November 2023 and expiring on 22 November 2028.
(5) For the 2013, conspiracy, Mr Kelu is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years commencing on 23 November 2025 and expiring on 22 November 2031.
(6) Under s 19AB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), a single non-parole period of four years and six months commencing on 23 November 2023 is fixed in relation to Mr Kelu’s sentence. Mr Kelu will be first eligible for parole on 22 May 2028.
Catchwords:
CRIME – sentencing – federal offenders – conspiracy to cause loss to the Commonwealth – tax fraud schemes involving solid gold trading – protracted investigation
[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 Kelu; R v Millner
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Kelu; R v Millner [2023] NSWSC 1537
Case
[2023] NSWSC 1537
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of R v Kelu; R v Millner, the respondents were convicted for their involvement in a conspiracy to cause loss to the Commonwealth through fraudulent tax schemes. The respondents, Kelu and Millner, participated in a series of transactions involving the trading of solid gold, which they used to defraud the Australian Taxation Office. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the respondents.
The primary legal issue before the court was the extent of the respondents' culpability in the conspiracy and the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in light of their substantial criminal activity. The court had to consider the gravity of the offence, the extent of the respondents' involvement, and the impact of their actions on the community and the Commonwealth. Additionally, the court needed to balance the principles of retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation in determining the appropriate sentence.
In its judgment, the court emphasised the significant harm caused by the respondents' actions, which involved a prolonged and sophisticated scheme to defraud the government. The court acknowledged the complexity and seriousness of the offence, as well as the respondents' substantial involvement. However, the court also considered the principles of proportionality and individualisation, ensuring that the sentence reflected the specific circumstances of each respondent. Ultimately, the court determined that the respondents should be sentenced to imprisonment, with the exact terms to be determined by the lower court, taking into account the aggravating and mitigating factors present in the case.
The High Court of Australia remitted the matter to the lower court for the determination of sentence, providing detailed guidelines for the lower court to consider in its sentencing decision. The court emphasised the need for a sentence that appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offence, the respondents' culpability, and the principles of criminal justice.