R v Lin

Case [2014] NSWCCA 254 10 November 2014

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available
Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: Regina v Qian Lin [2014] NSWCCA 254
Hearing dates: 13 October 2014
Decision date: 10 November 2014
Before: Leeming JA at [1]
Fullerton J at [3]
Bellew J at [17]
Decision:
(1) The Crown appeal against sentence is upheld.
(2) The sentence imposed in respect of the charge contrary s. 400.4(1) of the Criminal Code 2005 (Cth) is quashed.
(3) In lieu thereof, the respondent is sentenced to 1 year and 3 months imprisonment to date from 4 April 2014 and to expire on 3 July 2015.

Catchwords: APPEAL - Crown appeal against manifest inadequacy - money laundering - seriousness of offending evidenced in particular by large amount of money and repeated acts of the respondent - offending motivated by the prospect of financial gain - necessity to have proper regard to general deterrence - Crown appeal upheld - sentence manifestly inadequate - respondent re-sentenced
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Criminal Code 2005 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Bui v Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2012] HCA 1; (2012) 244 CLR 638
Everett v R [1994] HCA 49; (1994) 181 CLR 295
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Griffiths v R [1977] HCA 44; (1977) 137 CLR 293
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357
R v Girard [2004] NSWCCA 170
R v Guo; R v Quian [2010] NSWCCA 170; (2010) 201 A Crim R 403
R v Holder and Johnston [1983] 3 NSWLR 245
R v Huang; R v Siu [2007] NSWCCA 259; (2007) 174 A Crim R 370
R v Li (2010) 202 A Crim R 195
R v MD and ors [2005] NSWCCA 342; (2005) 156 A Crim R 372
R v Nguyen [2006] NSWCCA 369; (2006) 166 A Crim R 124
R v Olbrich [1999] HCA 54; (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v Togias [2001] NSWCCA 522; (2001) 127 A Crim R 23
R v X [2004] NSWCCA 93
R v Zerafa [2013] NSWCCA 222
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Regina (Cth) - Appellant
Qian Lin - Respondent
Representation: Counsel:
R J Bromwich SC and T Muir - Appellant
J Stratton SC and A Webb - Respondent
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Appellant
Hanby and Associates - Respondent

File Number(s): 2012/300850015
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Date of Decision:

2013-12-06 00:00:00

Before:

Toner SC DCJ

Judgment

LEEMING JA: I agree with Bellew J, for the reasons that he gives, that the sentence imposed by the primary judge for the respondent's money laundering conviction was erroneously lenient. I also agree with his Honour that the appropriate sentence for the money laundering conviction is imprisonment for 1 year and 3 months. That sentence, for an offence whose maximum penalty is 20 years imprisonment, reflects a number of considerations favourable to the respondent, including the facts that this…

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 Lin

Details

AGLC: R v Lin [2014] NSWCCA 254
Case: [2014] NSWCCA 254
Decision Date: 10 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal heard in the court was initiated by the Crown against a decision made by a lower court, concerning a respondent charged with money laundering. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate given the nature and seriousness of the respondent's offending. The appeal centred on the argument that the original sentence did not appropriately reflect the gravity of the respondent's actions, which were marked by substantial sums of money involved and repeated acts committed for financial gain.

The legal issues addressed by the court revolved around the assessment of the seriousness of the money laundering offences and the adequacy of the sentence imposed. The court was tasked with considering whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate, taking into account the large sums of money laundered and the repeated nature of the respondent's actions. Additionally, the court had to weigh the need for general deterrence in such cases of financial crime. The primary focus was on whether the sentence appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offending and whether it adequately served the purpose of general deterrence.

The court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. It emphasised the significant amount of money involved and the repeated acts of the respondent, which were driven by the prospect of financial gain. The court highlighted the necessity of considering general deterrence in cases of this nature, where financial gain is a motivating factor. Consequently, the Crown's appeal was upheld. The court re-sentenced the respondent, ensuring the new sentence better reflected the gravity of the offending and the need for general deterrence. The court's decision underscored the importance of appropriate sentencing in cases involving substantial financial crime.

Orders