Reed v The King - [2023] NSWDC 331

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Reed v R [2023] NSWDC 331
Hearing dates: 03 & 27 July 2023
Date of orders: 27 July 2023
Decision date: 27 July 2023
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:
(1) The appeal from conviction is dismissed.
(2) The appeal from sentence is allowed.
(3) Confirm the finding of guilt but without proceeding into conviction, Appellant to be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months from today pursuant to s 10(1)(b) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in conjunction with s 9 of the Act.

Catchwords:
APPEALS — Orders on appeal
CRIME — Proceeds of Crime — Dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Appeal and Review Act 2001
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Evidence Act 1995
Law Enforcement Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002
Supreme Court Act 1970

Cases Cited:
Cleary v Hammond [1987] 1 NSWLR 111
Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52
Ex PartePatmoy; re Jack (1944) 44 SR (NSW) 351
Grant v R [1981] 147 CLR 503
Hakem v Johnson NSW Supreme Court per Wood J on 15 October 1993 unreported
in Anderson v Judges of the District Court of NSW (1992) 27 NSWLR 701
Kelly v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 216
Lunney v DPP [2021] NSWCA 186
Purdon v Dittmar [1972] 1 NSWLR 94
R v Abbrederis (1981) 1 NSWLR 530
R v Dittmar [1973] 1 NSWLR 722

Texts Cited:
Criminal Practice and Procedure NSW

Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Jamie Lourene Reed (Appellant)
Rex (Respondent)
Representation:
Rajiv Baldeo (Counsel for the Appellant)
Jason Rafeeq (Solicitor for the Respondent (ODPP))
Hugo Law Group (Appellant)
Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2021/00019358
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

Sutherland Local Court

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

18 November 2022

Before:

P Lyon LCM

File Number(s):

2021/00019358

EX tempore revised JUDGeMENT

INTRODUCTION

(The revision of this ex tempore judgement was without access to the transcript of the proceedings in the Local Court and accordingly the entire accuracy of the passages quoted is not confirmed.)

Jamie Lourene Reed appeals from the conviction she suffered in the Local Court at Sutherland on 18 November 2022 after defended hearing of charges of dealing with the proceeds of crime to the value of less than $100,000.00 contrary to s 193C(2) Crimes Act 1900 and having in her custody the sum of $31,498.00 which may reasonably be suspected of being stolen or otherwise unlawfully obtained, an offence created by s 527C(1)(a) Crimes Act 1900. A further charge of possession of prohibited drug contrary to s 10(1) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 was withdrawn before the closing submissions in the Local Court.
The Magistrate dismissed the charge of dealing with the proceeds of crime but found the charge of goods in custody proven, whereupon on that day the appellant lodged her notice of appeal within the time in which she was entitled to pursue an appeal…

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 Reed v The King

Details

AGLC: Reed v The King [2023] NSWDC 331
Case: [2023] NSWDC 331
Decision Date: 27 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Reed v The King, the appellant stood accused of various criminal activities, including handling the proceeds of crime. The matter was heard and determined in a higher court on appeal. The appellant contested both the conviction and the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The central legal issues addressed in the appeal pertained to the validity of the conviction and the appropriateness of the sentence handed down by the lower court. The appellant argued that the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction and that the sentence was unduly harsh. The prosecution maintained that the evidence was robust and that the sentence was fair and within the bounds of what the court could impose.

The higher court found that while the evidence was indeed sufficient to support a conviction, the sentence was excessive. The court noted that the appellant had no prior criminal record and that the imposed sentence was disproportionate to the crime committed. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal from the conviction but allowed the appeal from the sentence. The court ordered that the appellant be of good behaviour for 18 months, commencing from the date of the appeal decision. This order was made pursuant to section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, in conjunction with section 9 of the same Act.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) The appeal from conviction is dismissed.

(2) The appeal from sentence is allowed.

(3) Confirm the finding of guilt but without proceeding into conviction, Appellant to be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months from today pursuant to s 10(1)(b) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in conjunction with s 9 of the Act.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Reed v R [2023] NSWDC 331
Hearing dates:	03 & 27 July 2023
Date of orders:	27 July 2023
Decision date:	27 July 2023
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Bennett SC DCJ
Decision:	(1) The appeal from conviction is dismissed. (2) The appeal from sentence is allowed. (3) Confirm the finding of guilt but without proceeding into conviction, Appellant to be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months from today pursuant to s 10(1)(b) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 in conjunction with s 9 of the Act.
Catchwords:	APPEALS — Orders on appeal CRIME — Proceeds of Crime — Dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes Appeal and Review Act 2001 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 Evidence Act 1995 Law Enforcement Powers and Responsibilities Act 2002 Supreme Court Act 1970
Cases Cited:	Cleary v Hammond [1987] 1 NSWLR 111 Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52 Ex PartePatmoy; re Jack (1944) 44 SR (NSW) 351 Grant v R [1981] 147 CLR 503 Hakem v Johnson NSW Supreme Court per Wood J on 15 October 1993 unreported in Anderson v Judges of the District Court of NSW (1992) 27 NSWLR 701 Kelly v The Queen (2004) 218 CLR 216 Lunney v DPP [2021] NSWCA 186 Purdon v Dittmar [1972] 1 NSWLR 94 R v Abbrederis (1981) 1 NSWLR 530 R v Dittmar [1973] 1 NSWLR 722
Texts Cited:	Criminal Practice and Procedure NSW
Category:	Principal judgment
Parties:	Jamie Lourene Reed (Appellant) Rex (Respondent)
Representation:	Rajiv Baldeo (Counsel for the Appellant) Jason Rafeeq (Solicitor for the Respondent (ODPP)) Hugo Law Group (Appellant) Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2021/00019358
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: Sutherland Local Court Jurisdiction: Criminal Date of Decision: 18 November 2022 Before: P Lyon LCM File Number(s): 2021/00019358