R v Lang

Case [2018] ACTSC 215


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Lang

Citation:

[2018] ACTSC 215

Hearing Date:

31 July 2018

DecisionDate:

31 July 2018

Before:

Murrell CJ

Decision:

See [30].

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – money laundering – sentencing purposes – general deterrence – denunciation

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) s 114B

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 7

Cases Cited:

R v Toumo'ua [2017] ACTCA 9

R v Lou (No. 2) [2017] ACTSC 266

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Darinka Irene Lang (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms K McCann (Crown)

Mr S Whybrow (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 100 of 2017

MURRELL CJ:

  1. The offender pleaded guilty to the offence that, between 1 January 2013 and 4 July 2016 at Canberra, she dealt with money or other property which formed the proceeds of crime and was reckless about whether the money or property was derived from unlawful activity.

  1. An offence of money laundering contrary to s 114B of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine.

  1. The plea of guilty was entered in the Supreme Court before the matter was listed for trial. The plea followed discussions that resulted in the prosecution filing a fresh indictment containing one “rolled up” count.

Facts

  1. For many years prior to the offence, the offender resided in a de facto relationship with Donald Johnston. The couple had children.  They lived in a home that was leased from ACT Housing.

  1. Until 2013, Mr Johnston and the offender received modest government benefits.

  1. The offender had nine bank accounts. Between 2013 and 2015, she began to make significant cash deposits into the accounts, including many deposits of between $1000.00 and $3000.00 and other deposits of between $4000.00 and $5000.00.

  1. On 23 December 2015, the offender purchased a property in Dickson for $600,000.00. She paid a substantial deposit and obtained a loan of $480,000.00.

  1. On 10 February 2016, the offender purchased a property at McKellar for $820,000.00. She paid a substantial deposit and obtained a loan of $656,000.00.

  1. Until 4 July 2016, the offender continued to make substantial cash deposits into her bank accounts.

  1. In 2013, the offender registered as a sole trader undertaking sex work and she began to declare taxable income. The offender’s statements to the police indicate that in the period covered by the offence she worked sporadically as a sex worker.

  1. From 2013 to 2015 she declared significant taxable incomes from her business (rising to $120,926.00 in 2015) as well as personal taxable income (rising to $60,596.00 in 2015), but in each tax year the cash deposits into her various accounts significantly exceeded the income declared.

  1. In 2016, police intercepted telephone conversations that revealed multiple drug sales by Mr Johnston, assisted by his son Alex Johnston. When stopped by police on 9 July 2016, Mr Johnston was in possession of heroin with a minimum…

Continue reading R v Lang

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Lang [2018] ACTSC 215
Case
[2018] ACTSC 215
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Lang, appealed against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland. Lang was convicted of multiple counts of money laundering and faced a lengthy prison sentence. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether the trial judge had properly considered the relevant sentencing principles. The appeal focused on the principles of general deterrence and denunciation in sentencing.

The central legal issue was whether the trial judge had given sufficient weight to the principles of general deterrence and denunciation in imposing the sentence. The court needed to assess whether the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the crime and whether it adequately served the purposes of deterring future offences and denouncing the unlawful conduct. The appellant argued that the sentence was excessively harsh and did not appropriately reflect the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court considered that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the principles of general deterrence and denunciation with other relevant factors. The court found that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate. The trial judge had correctly evaluated the seriousness of the offences, the need to protect the community, and the appellant's culpability. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed and appropriately served the purposes of deterrence and denunciation.

The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appellant was to serve the term of imprisonment as determined by the trial court. The court emphasised the importance of an appropriate sentence that reflects the gravity of the offence and serves the broader purposes of the criminal justice system.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [30].

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.