R v Rostankovski

Case [2021] NSWDC 847


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Rostankovski [2021] NSWDC 847
Hearing dates: 16 – 18 March 2021
Date of orders: 1 April 2021
Decision date: 01 April 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Abadee DCJ
Decision:

See paragraph 208 - 211

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL – sentence – federal and state offences – blackmail – aiding and abetting tax frauds – money laundering – effect of cooperation with law enforcement on sentencing factors – whether restraining order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to amount to extra-curial punishment – appropriate discount for guilty plea – consideration of principle of parity – consideration of principle of totality

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 249K

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A, 17A

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) ss 3A, 5, 21A

Criminal Code (Cth) ss 11.2, 11.2A, 135.1, 135.4 400.3

Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (Cth) ss 29, 39, 44, 320

Cases Cited:

Attorney General’s Reference No 40 of 2002 (John Alexander Collard) [2003] 1 Cr App R (S) 98

Attorney-General v Emmerson (2014) 307 ALR 174

Benasic and Malavetas v R (1987) 77 ALR 340

Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police v Mulder (2013) 278 FLR 103

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Beattie (2017) 270 A Crim R 556

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v De La Rosa (2010) 243 FLR 28

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1

Dickson v The Queen [2016] NSWCCA 105

Elias v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 483

Elshani v R [2015] NSWCCA 354

GAS v The Queen; SJK v The Queen (2004) 217 CLR 198

Gillard v The Queen (2003) 219 CLR 1

Giourtalis v R [2013] NSWCCA 216

Greenv The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462

Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520

Huang v R [2018] NSWCCA 57

Ihemeje v R [2012] NSWCCA 269

Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144

Jehan Jodeh v R [2011] NSWCCA 194

Kim v R [2016] VSCA 238

Magdi v Western Australia [2010] WASCA 234

Muldrockv The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120

Noble v R [2018] NSWCCA 253

Pashley v The Queen [2019] NSWCCA 119

Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610

Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295

R v Anquetil [2020] NSWSC 995

R v Ansari (2007) 70 NSWLR 89

R v De Leeuw [2015] NSWCCA 183

R v Guo (2010) 201 A Crim R 403

R vHammond [2020] NSWSC 888

R v Host [2015] WASCA 23

R v Huang; R v Sui (2007) 174 A Crim R 370

R v Issakidis [2018] NSWSC 378

R v Kitson [2019] NSWSC 1109

R v Li (2010) 202 A Crim R 195

R v Pughe [2019] NSWDC 897

R v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284

R v Sanoussi [2005] NSWCCA 323

R v Thomson & Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383

R v Tran & Tran [2011] SASCFC 153

R v Wilkinson (No.5) [2009] NSWSC 432

R v Zerafa (2013)…

Continue reading R v Rostankovski

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Rostankovski [2021] NSWDC 847
Case
[2021] NSWDC 847
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rostankovski, the defendant was charged with a range of offences including blackmail, aiding and abetting tax frauds, and money laundering. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the Court was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account various mitigating and aggravating factors, including the defendant's cooperation with law enforcement agencies and the potential impact of a restraining order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The Court also had to consider the appropriate discount for the defendant's early guilty plea and the principles of parity and totality in sentencing.

The Court began by examining the nature and extent of the defendant's criminal conduct, weighing this against the mitigating factors such as the defendant's cooperation with authorities and early guilty plea. The Court noted that the defendant's cooperation had led to the arrest and conviction of other offenders, thereby reducing the harm caused by the criminal activities. However, the Court also had to consider the gravity of the offences, particularly the tax frauds and money laundering, which had significant financial implications and undermined public trust in the tax system. The Court further considered the principle of parity, which requires that similar crimes be punished similarly, and the principle of totality, which requires that the total sentence for multiple offences not be disproportionate. In light of these considerations, the Court determined that the appropriate sentence should reflect both the seriousness of the offences and the mitigating factors, while also ensuring that the sentence was proportionate and just.

The Court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences, but that the sentence should be reduced to reflect the defendant's cooperation and early guilty plea. The Court also considered the potential impact of a restraining order under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, but ultimately concluded that such an order did not amount to extra-curial punishment and should not be considered as a mitigating factor in sentencing. The Court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a discount for the early guilty plea, and also made orders under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to recover the proceeds of the defendant's criminal activities. The Court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences were proportionate and just, taking into account all relevant factors, and that the principles of parity and totality were properly applied in the sentencing process.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraph 208 - 211

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.