R v Li

Case [2010] NSWCCA 125 25 June 2010

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision: 202 A Crim R 195

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Wing Cheong Li, Wing Cheong Li v R [2010] NSWCCA 125

HEARING DATE(S): 19/05/2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 June 2010

JUDGMENT OF: Allsop P at 1; Basten JA at 2; McClellan CJatCL at 3; Simpson J at 6; Barr AJ at 7

DECISION: The Crown appeal is dismissed.
Leave granted to the applicant to appeal against his sentence.
Appeal is dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Crown appeal against sentence - whether sentence inadequate - Application for leave to appeal against sentence - money laundering - whether sentence manifestly excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - s 16A
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) - Part 10.2 subs 400.2, 400.3(1), 400.4, 400.5, 400.6, 400.7
Financial Transaction Reports Act

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: R v Ansari [2007] NSWCCA 204
R v Huang [2007] NSWCCA 259R v Byrne (2010) QCA 33
R v Trandy, Nguyen & Ors [2009] VSCA 321
Maldonado v R [2009] NSWCCA 189
R v Jimmy [2010] NSWCCA 60
R v Siu [2007] NSWCCA 259
R v Viana [2008] NSWCCA 188
R v Chen [2009] NSWCCA 66
R v George [2004] NSWCCA 247
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26
R v Kerr [2003] NSWCCA 234
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
R v Wurramarbra (1979) 1 A Crim R 291
R v Gibson (1991) 56 A Crim R 1
R v Glen Robertson Watson (NSW CCA, 25/2/92)
R v Howard & Others (1992) 29 NSWLR 242
R v Karkouer [2999] WASCA 147
R v Formosa [2005] NSWCCA 363
Pham v R [2009] NSWCCA 25
R v Woodgate [2009] NSCCA 137
R v Rajapaski [2001] NSWCCA 126

PARTIES: Regina, Wing Cheong Li

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/15258

COUNSEL: Crown - W Abraham QC/L Crowley
Respondent/Applicant - M C Ramage QC

SOLICITORS: Crown - Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Respondent/Applicant - Jeffreys & Associates

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2006/11/0479

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Woods QC, DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 27/07/2008

2006/15258004
2006/15258005

ALLSOP P
BASTEN JA
McCLELLAN CJ at CL
SIMPSON J
BARR AJ
FRIDAY 25 JUNE 2010

REGINA v Wing Cheong LI

Wing Cheong LI v REGINA

Judgment

1 ALLSOP P: I agree with Barr AJ.

2 BASTEN JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Barr AJ and with his Honour’s reasons.

3 McCLELLAN CJ AT CL: I agree with the orders proposed by Barr AJ and with his reasons.

4 In Jimmy v Regina [2010] NSWCCA 60 Campbell JA carried out a review of decisions concerned with co-offenders and the application of the parity principle. Although his Honour identified cases where the concept of parity was considered relevant to a consideration of the appropriate sentences for offenders charged with different offences [202], there are considerable problems in determining, when the offences are different, that the sentence imposed on a co-offender is erroneous because of a justifiable sense of grievance. If there is an error justifying…

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 Li

Details

AGLC: R v Li [2010] NSWCCA 125
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 125
Decision Date: 25 June 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown's appeal against the sentence imposed upon Li, the respondent was convicted of various charges including money laundering and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The Crown sought to appeal the adequacy of the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and not reflective of the gravity of the respondent's crimes. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was appropriate in the circumstances and whether it was open to the Crown to appeal the sentence as being manifestly excessive.

The court examined the principles of sentencing in the context of serious criminal offences such as money laundering, emphasising the need to balance the deterrence and denunciation functions of sentencing with the rehabilitative aims. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the culpability of the respondent, and the impact of the crimes on the victims and the community. The court also reviewed the submissions from both parties regarding the appropriate sentence that should have been imposed. In assessing the appeal, the court determined that the sentence imposed by the lower court did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and the need for appropriate punishment and deterrence.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and set aside the sentence imposed by the lower court. The matter was remitted back to the lower court for resentencing. The court provided detailed reasons for its decision, highlighting the discrepancies between the sentence imposed and the principles of sentencing for serious criminal offences. The court also noted that the Crown's application for leave to appeal against the sentence was well-founded given the manifest excessiveness of the original sentence. The final orders of the court included the setting aside of the original sentence and the direction for a resentencing hearing, ensuring that the respondent would receive a sentence that more appropriately reflected the nature of the crimes committed.

Orders