Legal Research
Cases
R v Onley

R v Onley

Case [2023] NSWSC 1008 22 August 2023

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Breach of Trust

Unconscionable Conduct

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Onley [2023] NSWSC 1008
Hearing dates: 16 August 2023; 22 August 2023
Date of orders: 22 August 2023
Decision date: 22 August 2023
Jurisdiction: Common Law
Before: Payne JA
Decision:
(1)    Mr Onley is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 9 years to commence on 6 March 2023 and expire on 5 March 2032 for the tax fraud conspiracy;
(2)    Mr Onley is sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 12 years to commence on 6 March 2026 and expire on 5 March 2038 for the money laundering conspiracy;
(3) Under s 19AB of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) a single non-parole period of 10 years commencing on 6 March 2023 is fixed;
(4)    The offender is first eligible for parole on 5 March 2033.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentence – federal offenders – conspiracy to cause loss to the Commonwealth – money laundering conspiracy – significant loss to the Commonwealth – persistent course of conduct

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) sch 1, Criminal Code

Cases Cited:
AE v R [2023] NSWCCA 74
Almada v R [2015] NSWCCA 19
Alpha v The Queen [2013] NSWCCA 292
Arenilla-Cepeda v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 267
Cheung v R (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67
Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Pratten (No 2) (2017) 94 NSWLR 194; [2017] NSWCCA 42
Director of Public Prosecutions v Hamman (NSWCCA, unreported, 1 December 1998)
DPP (Cth) v De La Rosa (2010) 79 NSWLR 1; [2010] NSWCCA 194
DPP (Cth) v Estrada (2015) 45 VR 286; [2015] VSCA 22
DPP (Cth) v Goldberg [2001] VSCA 107; (2001) 48 ATR 549
Elomar v The Queen (2014) 316 ALR 206; [2014] NSWCCA 303
Filippou v The Queen (2015) 256 CLR 47; [2015] HCA 29
Giang v R [2017] NSWCCA 25
Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
Issakidis v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 302
Kao v R [2020] NSWCCA 38
Leach v The Queen (2007) 230 CLR 1; [2007] HCA 3
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25
Pearce v R (1988) 194 CLR 610
R v Adam Cranston [2023] NSWSC 1004
R v Agius [2012] NSWSC 978; (2012) 87 ATR 528
R v Anquetil [2020] NSWSC 995
R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268
R v Brown (1986) 43 SASR 33
R v Caradonna [2000] NSWCCA 398; 118 A Crim R 312
R v Dev Menon [2023] NSWSC 768
R v Doff [2005] NSWCCA 119
R v El Rashid (NSWCCA, unreported, 7 April 1995)
R v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1; [2011] VSCA 145
R v Guo; R v Qian [2010] NSWCCA 170; (2010) 201 A Crim R 403
R v Hammond [2020] NSWSC 888
R v Hausman; Hausman v R; R…

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 Onley

Details

AGLC: R v Onley [2023] NSWSC 1008
Case: [2023] NSWSC 1008
Decision Date: 22 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Onley involved the respondent, Onley, who was convicted of conspiracy to cause loss to the Commonwealth and conspiracy to launder money, resulting in significant loss to the Commonwealth. The dispute arose in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Onley. Onley had been involved in a persistent course of conduct that led to significant financial losses for the Commonwealth, necessitating a thorough examination of the legal principles governing sentencing in such cases.

The primary legal issues before the court were the extent to which Onley’s persistent criminal conduct should influence the sentencing, and whether the sentence should reflect the significant loss caused to the Commonwealth. The court was required to balance the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and retribution with the need to provide a sentence proportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the trial judge had appropriately assessed the factors relevant to the sentencing of Onley.

The court held that the trial judge had correctly considered the relevant factors in arriving at the sentence. It was noted that the persistent nature of Onley’s criminal conduct, along with the significant loss to the Commonwealth, warranted a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately weighed the aggravating and mitigating factors, including the persistent course of conduct, the significant loss caused, and Onley’s personal circumstances. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate, thereby affirming the trial judge’s decision.

The High Court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge, finding no error in the sentencing process. The court emphasised the importance of considering the persistent nature of the offences and the significant loss to the Commonwealth when determining an appropriate sentence in such cases. The court’s decision provides clarity on the sentencing principles applicable to federal offenders involved in persistent criminal conduct that causes significant financial harm to the Commonwealth.

Orders