R v Templer - [1999] VSCA 216

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

Not Restricted

No. 171 of 1999

THE QUEEN

PATRICK EDWARD TEMPLER

---

JUDGES:	BROOKING, PHILLIPS & BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 November 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 November 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSCA 216

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Conspiracy to "money launder" proceeds of drug dealing – Offender terminating conspiracy before money changed hands – Whether sufficient weight given to offender's desisting – Two years' imprisonment (with one year minimum) upheld.

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth.) s.86, Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth.) s.81.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Mr J.R. Champion

P.C. Wood, Solicitor for

D.P.P.

For the Applicant

Mr O.P. Holdenson, Q.C.

Haines & Polites

BROOKING, J.A.:

Mr Justice Phillips will deliver the first judgment.

PHILLIPS, J.A.:

The applicant, who was born on 14 October 1951, is now 48 years' old. On 28 July 1999 he was indicted in Melbourne before the County Court on one count of conspiracy to commit an offence against a law of the Commonwealth. There had been an earlier indictment containing three counts but that was not proceeded with. Upon its being filed, the second indictment was promptly amended. As amended the charge read as follows:

"That between the 20th day of March 1996 and the 26th day of March 1997 at Melbourne in the State of Victoria and at diverse other places Patrick Edward TEMPLER did contrary to subsection 86(1) of the Crimes Act 1914 conspire with Lawrence Edward McLean to commit an offence against a law of the Commonwealth, namely the offence of money laundering contrary to subsection 81(2) of the Proceeds of Crimes Act 1987."

The expression "money laundering" is given particular meaning in s.81(2) of the Proceeds of Crime Act; for according to s.81(3) -
"A person shall be taken to engage in money laundering if and only if
(a) the person engages directly or indirectly in a transaction that involves money or other property that is proceeds of crime or
(b) that person receives possesses conceals disposes of or brings into Australia any money or other property that is proceeds of crime and the person knows or ought reasonably to know that the money or other property is derived or realised directly or indirectly from some form of unlawful activity."

According to s.81(2) an individual who is guilty of money laundering may be punished upon conviction by a fine not exceeding $200,000 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding 20 years, or both. By s.86(1) of the Crimes Act the offence of conspiracy to commit such an offence attracts the like penalty.

To the one count in this second and amended indictment the applicant pleaded guilty on 29 July. He admitted the 12 previous convictions alleged against him. The first two were convictions in the Magistrates' Court in suburban Melbourne in 1972 for relatively minor offences of dishonesty. The next were nine convictions from three appearances in courts in Queensland during 1980…

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 Templer

Details

AGLC: R v Templer [1999] VSCA 216
Case: [1999] VSCA 216
Decision Date: 29 November 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia against Templer, the defendant stood accused of conspiring to launder money derived from drug trafficking. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed given the defendant's cessation of the conspiracy prior to the exchange of any funds. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the legal issues pertinent to sentencing in such a scenario.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether sufficient weight had been attributed to the defendant's decision to terminate the conspiracy before any money laundering activities occurred. The court had to balance the gravity of the offence with the defendant's early desistance. Additionally, the court examined whether the sentence imposed was commensurate with the principles of justice and proportionality, particularly in light of the defendant's proactive step to end the criminal enterprise.

The High Court found that the lower court had appropriately considered the defendant's early termination of the conspiracy, but nevertheless upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court reasoned that while the defendant's desistance was a mitigating factor, it did not entirely negate the seriousness of the offence. The High Court held that the two-year imprisonment term, with a minimum of one year to be served, was justified given the nature of the crime and the potential societal harm involved in drug trafficking and money laundering. The decision underscored the importance of both punishment and deterrence in such criminal activities.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond affirming the sentence as appropriate. The High Court's ruling thus stands as a reaffirmation of the need to balance individual circumstances with the broader implications of criminal conduct.

Orders