Regina v Snell - [1999] NSWCCA 26

CITATION: REGINA v. SNELL [1999] NSWCCA 26 revised - 10/03/99

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60329 of 1998

HEARING DATE(S): Friday 3 March 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
5 March 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v.
SNELL, Keith Hamilton

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1; Grove J at 21; Dunford J at 22

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0710

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Gibson, DCJ.

COUNSEL: Crown: P. Hastings, QC./G. Tabuteau
Applicant: A.F. Backman

SOLICITORS: Crown: Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
Applicant: W.R. Goodman & Associates

CATCHWORDS: Sentence - comparable culpability - parity - trial judge's findings - no error

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - s.86(1)
Proceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth) - s.81

CASES CITED:
Regina v. Kelly (1993) 30 NSWLR 64
Cranssen v. The King (1936) 55 CLR 509
Postiglione v. The Queen (1996-97) 189 CLR 295
Regina v. Hodges (CCA
unreported 20 August 1997)
Regina v. WHS (CCA
unreported 27 March 1995)
Lowe v. Regina (1984) 154 CLR 606

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

SNELL -13-
IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
No. 60329 of 1998
CORAM: GROVE, J.
DUNFORD, J.
GREG JAMES, J.
FRIDAY 5 MARCH 1999

REGINA v. KEITH HAMILTON SNELL
JUDGMENT

GREG JAMES, J:
1 Leave to appeal is sought against the severity of a sentence of imprisonment for four years with a non-parole period of two and a half years in respect of a conviction for conspiracy (s.86(1) of the Crimes Act (Cth) 1914) to breach s.81 of the Proceeds of Crime Act (Cth) 1987. The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years imprisonment, a fine of $200,000 or both.
2 The offence is less technically referred to as money laundering. In this case what was being laundered were the proceeds of drug trafficking in illegally imported cannabis and cannabis resin.
3 The drug importation offences committed by the syndicate, which the applicant, as a member of the charged conspiracy, assisted, were punishable by a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Other offences committed by the syndicate, including drug trafficking, were punishable by severe sentences.
4 The applicant, his wife Jeanie Tandoc Snell, one Francis Mervyn Irvine and others were not party to the drug importation and sales but were involved in a conspiracy to use $850,000 of the profits to purchase the Bunyip Inn Guest House at Berry. There was evidence the applicant admitted to police it was he who suggested the scheme to the principal of the drug syndicate, Lawrence Edward McLean, and further admitted that one of his objects in doing so was to establish an income for his wife, his children and friends giving them security in Australia, also that he prompted McLean to arrange for money for the purchase to be deposited in his wife's bank account. He denied all of these matters, however, in his evidence to the trial judge on plea, asserting McLean was making provision for him by providing an opportunity to earn income. A reading of his evidence suggests he is trying to…

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 Regina v Snell

Details

AGLC: Regina v Snell [1999] NSWCCA 26
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 26
Decision Date: 5 March 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Regina v Snell involved an appeal by the Crown against the sentence imposed on the appellant, Snell, following his conviction for murder. The appeal centred on the sentence's appropriateness in light of comparable cases, seeking to establish whether the trial judge erred in his assessment of Snell's culpability and the appropriate punishment. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issues revolved around the principles of sentencing in criminal cases, particularly the concept of comparable culpability. The Crown argued that the trial judge's findings did not sufficiently align with the principles of parity in sentencing, suggesting that Snell's sentence was unduly lenient when compared to other cases of similar gravity. The Court was required to determine whether the trial judge had made an error in his assessment that could have influenced the sentence imposed.

The Court examined the trial judge's sentencing remarks and the evidence presented during the trial. It concluded that the trial judge had adequately considered the principles of comparable culpability and the factors relevant to Snell's culpability. The Court found no error in the trial judge's approach or findings, affirming that the sentence was appropriately tailored to Snell's individual circumstances and the nature of the crime committed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

No additional orders were made by the Court beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld, reflecting the Court's endorsement of the trial judge's discretion and assessment in the matter.

Orders