R v Vincent, Jamieson - [2010] NSWDC 302

CITATION: R v Vincent, Jamieson [2010] NSWDC 302

HEARING DATE(S): 15/07/2010, 17/09/2010 & 11/11/2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 November 2010

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Nicholson SC DCJ

DECISION: Convicted - Sentenced - 3 years to date from the 19th November 2010 and expiring on the 18th November 2013.
The offender to be released on 18th July 2012 on a recognizance release order, himself in the sum of $10.00.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentencing - Conspire to deal with proceeds of crime - Commonwealth offence - fraud on Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme - $150million transferred to four off-shore accounts - attempts to access $20 million+ from Hong Kong account - offenders role minor - distinction between acts in furtherance of principal offence and acts in pursuit of obtaining proceeds of that offence - money laundering offence - sentencing structure for dealing in proceeds of crime - fault element - quantum of proceeds - appropriate principles - 41year old offender - extensive criminal history - development of serious illness - survival beyond 5 years unlikely - delay in prosecution - charged offences ante date prior custody - non parole for subsequent offences completed - impact of delay - systemic problems impeding health treatment for prisoner in custody - likelihood of flaws in delivery of timely health services - parity of sentences - co offenders charged with offences of different nature with different maximum penalty sanctions - difficulty following exercise of prosecutorial discretion - justifiable sense of grievance found.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Code Act 1995
Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth)

CASES CITED: Mark John Doyle (1996) 84 A.Crim.R 287
De Simone v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383
Ansari v The Queen (2007) 70 NSWLR 89
Chen v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 66
R v Dragan Jokovic [2010] NSWDC 155
R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517
Mills v The Queen [1988] HCA 70
Sopher (1993) 70 A.Crim.R 570

PARTIES: Regina
Jamieson Vincent

FILE NUMBER(S): 2008/12910

COUNSEL: Crown: P Hastings QC
Defence: B Neild

JUDGMENT

1. In May 2006 Jamieson Vincent was sentenced by me for two counts of supplying a commercial quantity of ecstasy. These offences occurred in 2002 and 2003. There were three further drug matters of possession and possession of a prohibited weapon that he asked to be taken into account when sentencing him.

2. The two sentences I imposed were subject to Crown appeal. The Court of Criminal Appeal imposed an overall sentence of eight years with a non-parole of five. Jamieson Vincent has been serving these sentences since 23 February 2004. His non-parole period expired on 22 February 2009. He was arrested and charged with being involved in money laundering conspiracy on 21 December 2007.

3. His participation in this offence is said to have occurred between 1 June 2003 and 1 February 2004. That is, a period ending three weeks before he went into custody pursuant to my orders. Having served five years non-parole he now faces the prospects of being returned to custody to serve a sentence for an…

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 Vincent, Jamieson

Details

AGLC: R v Vincent, Jamieson [2010] NSWDC 302
Case: [2010] NSWDC 302
Decision Date: 19 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Vincent, Jamieson involved a legal dispute pertaining to conspiracy to deal with proceeds of crime under Commonwealth law. The offenders, Vincent and Jamieson, were found to have been involved in a scheme that resulted in $150 million being fraudulently transferred to four offshore accounts, with subsequent attempts to access over $20 million from one of those accounts in Hong Kong. The legal issues at the heart of the case revolved around the distinction between acts that furthered the principal offence and those that were in pursuit of obtaining proceeds from that offence. This distinction is crucial in determining whether the offence constitutes money laundering. The court had to consider the sentencing structure for dealing in proceeds of crime, taking into account the fault element, the quantum of the proceeds, and appropriate sentencing principles. Vincent, aged 41 at the time of sentencing, had an extensive criminal history and was facing a serious illness with a prognosis of survival beyond five years being unlikely. The court also considered the delay in prosecution, the impact of the delay, and systemic issues impeding timely health treatment for the offender while in custody.

The court meticulously examined the roles of the offenders, with Vincent's role being minor in comparison to his co-offender. This differentiation played a critical role in the sentencing deliberations. The systemic problems that impeded the timely delivery of health services to Vincent in custody were a significant mitigating factor. The court acknowledged the delay in prosecution, which predated Vincent's prior custody for subsequent offences, and the justifiable sense of grievance this may have caused. The sentencing also had to consider parity with co-offenders charged with different offences and the prosecutorial discretion exercised in charging decisions. Ultimately, the court determined that despite the delay and the systemic issues, the appropriate sentence for Vincent was a term of imprisonment of three years, to be served from the date of 19 November 2010, expiring on 18 November 2013. Vincent was to be released on 18 July 2012 on a recognizance release order, himself in the sum of $10.00.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted - Sentenced - 3 years to date from the 19th November 2010 and expiring on the 18th November 2013.

The offender to be released on 18th July 2012 on a recognizance release order, himself in the sum of $10.00.

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.

CITATION:	R v Vincent, Jamieson [2010] NSWDC 302
HEARING DATE(S):	15/07/2010, 17/09/2010 & 11/11/2010
JUDGMENT DATE:	19 November 2010
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Nicholson SC DCJ
DECISION:	Convicted - Sentenced - 3 years to date from the 19th November 2010 and expiring on the 18th November 2013. The offender to be released on 18th July 2012 on a recognizance release order, himself in the sum of $10.00.
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal Law - Sentencing - Conspire to deal with proceeds of crime - Commonwealth offence - fraud on Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme - $150million transferred to four off-shore accounts - attempts to access $20 million+ from Hong Kong account - offenders role minor - distinction between acts in furtherance of principal offence and acts in pursuit of obtaining proceeds of that offence - money laundering offence - sentencing structure for dealing in proceeds of crime - fault element - quantum of proceeds - appropriate principles - 41year old offender - extensive criminal history - development of serious illness - survival beyond 5 years unlikely - delay in prosecution - charged offences ante date prior custody - non parole for subsequent offences completed - impact of delay - systemic problems impeding health treatment for prisoner in custody - likelihood of flaws in delivery of timely health services - parity of sentences - co offenders charged with offences of different nature with different maximum penalty sanctions - difficulty following exercise of prosecutorial discretion - justifiable sense of grievance found.
LEGISLATION CITED:	Criminal Code Act 1995 Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth)
CASES CITED:	Mark John Doyle (1996) 84 A.Crim.R 287 De Simone v The Queen (1981) 147 CLR 383 Ansari v The Queen (2007) 70 NSWLR 89 Chen v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 66 R v Dragan Jokovic [2010] NSWDC 155 R v Todd [1982] 2 NSWLR 517 Mills v The Queen [1988] HCA 70 Sopher (1993) 70 A.Crim.R 570
PARTIES:	Regina Jamieson Vincent
FILE NUMBER(S):	2008/12910
COUNSEL:	Crown: P Hastings QC Defence: B Neild