Johnson J at [1]; Harrison J at [203]; Fagan J at [205]
Decision:
Crown appeal dismissed.
Catchwords:
CRIME — Crown appeal against sentence — respondent pleaded guilty to dealing with funds reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime under s.1 93C(1) Crimes Act 1900 (six counts), attempt to obtain financial advantage by deception under s.192E(1)(b) Crimes Act 1900 (one count) and dealing with money reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime under s.400.9(1) Criminal Code (Cth) (one count) — two further s.193C(1) offences taken into account on sentence — aggregate sentence imposed for s.193C(1) and s.192E(1)(b) offences — total effective sentence of imprisonment for five years and six months with minimum term of two years and eight months — offences involved total of about $103 million over 15-month period — first ground asserted error by failing to assess individually the objective seriousness of each of the s.193C(1) offences — same indicative sentences nominated for four offences despite very significant differences between amount of money and number of transactions involved in each count — each s.193C(1) charge a rolled-up count—approach to assessment of objective seriousness of rolled-up counts - capacity to consider challenge to indicative sentences as components of aggregate sentence — first ground of appeal established — second ground asserted that overall sentence manifestly inadequate— error concerning s.193C(1) indicative sentences contributed to imposition of manifestly inadequate sentence — significant objective gravity of offences — combined 40% discount for pleas of guilty and assistance to authorities — other strong subjective factors — held overall sentence manifestly inadequate — consideration of residual discretion — substantial ongoing assistance to authorities in new areas since imposition of sentence in District Court — earliest release date imminent — function of Crown sentence appeals — exceptional and unusual case — held Court should not resentence — Crown appeal dismissed
[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 MT
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v MT [2022] NSWCCA 53
Case
[2022] NSWCCA 53
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v MT involved the respondent who had pleaded guilty to multiple criminal charges, including dealing with funds reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime, attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception, and dealing with money reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime under both state and federal legislation. The total amount of money involved in the offences spanned approximately $103 million over a period of 15 months. The appeal was initiated by the Crown against the sentence imposed by the District Court, which was an aggregate sentence for certain offences, resulting in a total effective imprisonment term of five years and six months with a minimum term of two years and eight months.
The legal issues before the court were twofold. Firstly, whether there was an error in the District Court's approach to assessing the objective seriousness of each of the offences under s.193C(1) of the Crimes Act 1900. The Crown argued that the District Court failed to individually assess the objective seriousness of each offence, despite significant differences in the amounts of money and the number of transactions involved in each count. Secondly, the Crown contended that the overall sentence was manifestly inadequate, given the gravity of the offences and the discount applied for pleas of guilty and assistance to authorities.
In determining the appeal, the court found that the District Court had indeed erred in its assessment of the objective seriousness of the offences. The court noted that the indicative sentences were not appropriately tailored to the significant differences between the counts. However, the court also found that the overall sentence was manifestly inadequate, in part due to the error in assessing the indicative sentences. Despite this, the court held that the Crown appeal should not result in a resentence because the respondent had provided substantial ongoing assistance to authorities since the original sentence was imposed, and the earliest release date was imminent. The court concluded that this was an exceptional and unusual case where the function of Crown sentence appeals did not warrant a resentence by the Court.
The final orders of the court were to dismiss the Crown's appeal against the sentence.