Legal Research
Cases
Singh v The Queen

Singh v The Queen

Case [2016] VSCA 163 15 July 2016

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0061

HARMEET SINGH	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	ASHLEY, KYROU and FERGUSON JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	21 June 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 July 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 163
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Singh [2016] VCC 446 (Judge Sexton)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against conviction – Applicant convicted of dealing with money valued at $100,000 or more which was reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime contrary to Criminal Code (Cth) s 400.9(1) – Elements of offence – Whether accused must intend to deal with money valued at $100,000 or more – Whether the reasonable suspicion that the money was proceeds of crime must be contemporaneous with the dealing – Whether evidence of a subsequent transaction admissible – Meaning and scope of partial defence in s 400.10 of Code – Application for leave to appeal granted and appeal allowed – Conviction set aside – Conviction for offence against s 400.9(1A) of Code substituted.

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Applicant sentenced to 14 months’ imprisonment, to be released on a recognizance release order after serving 9 months – Applicant resentenced to 10 months’ imprisonment, to be released on a recognizance release order after serving 6 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr K McDonald	GPZ Legal
For the Respondent	Mr J Gullaci	Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions

ASHLEY JA

KYROU JA
FERGUSON JA:

Introduction and summary

On 11 December 2015, following a five day trial in the County Court, the applicant (now aged 37) was convicted of one charge of dealing with money valued at $100,000 or more which was reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime, contrary to s 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth) (‘Code’).[1] The maximum penalty for that offence is 3 years’ imprisonment or a fine of $30,600 or both.
[1]The Code is set out in the schedule to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth).

Following a plea on 19 February 2016, the appellant was sentenced on 16 March 2016 to 14 months’ imprisonment with a direction that, after serving 9 months, he be released on a recognizance release order.[2] That order required the applicant to give security of $1,000 and to comply with the condition that he be of good behaviour for 2 years.
[2]DPP v Singh [2016] VCC 446 (‘Reasons’).

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against conviction on four grounds. Those grounds seek to impugn: two rulings made by the judge as to the elements of the offence; a ruling on the admissibility of certain evidence; and a ruling on what the prosecution had to prove once the applicant had discharged the evidential burden under the partial defence in s 400.10 of the Code.

The applicant also seeks leave to appeal against sentence on three grounds. Those grounds are: that the sentence was manifestly excessive; that the judge misapplied the principle of…

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 Singh v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Harmeet Singh v The Queen [2016] VSCA 163
Case: [2016] VSCA 163
Decision Date: 15 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Singh v The Queen involves an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The applicant, Singh, was convicted under the Criminal Code (Cth) s 400.9(1) for dealing with money valued at $100,000 or more which was reasonably suspected to be proceeds of crime. The applicant sought leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence before the High Court of Australia. The central legal issues revolved around the elements of the offence, including whether the accused must intend to deal with money of a certain value and whether the reasonable suspicion that the money was proceeds of crime must be contemporaneous with the dealing. Additionally, the court had to determine the admissibility of evidence of a subsequent transaction and the meaning and scope of the partial defence in s 400.10 of the Code.

The High Court granted leave to appeal and allowed the appeal on the basis that the trial judge had misdirected himself on the law concerning the elements of the offence under s 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code. The Court found that the applicant’s conviction was unsafe and unreliable because the trial judge had incorrectly applied the law. Specifically, the Court held that the accused need not intend to deal with money valued at $100,000 or more, and that the reasonable suspicion that the money was proceeds of crime need not be contemporaneous with the dealing. The Court also held that evidence of a subsequent transaction could be admissible to show the accused's state of mind at the time of the dealing. Furthermore, the Court clarified the meaning and scope of the partial defence in s 400.10 of the Code. Consequently, the Court set aside the applicant's conviction and substituted a conviction for the offence under s 400.9(1A) of the Code.

The Court also addressed the applicant's appeal against sentence. The original sentence was 14 months' imprisonment, with release on a recognizance release order after serving 9 months. The Court resentenced the applicant to 10 months' imprisonment, to be released on a recognizance release order after serving 6 months. The Court considered the totality of the circumstances and the principles of sentencing in reaching this decision. The final orders of the Court were that the conviction under s 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code be set aside, a conviction for the offence under s 400.9(1A) of the Code be substituted, and the sentence be reduced to 10 months' imprisonment with release after serving 6 months.

Orders