T T v The Queen - [2012] VSCA 27

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2009 1008
TT	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 February 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 February 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 27
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v [TT] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Wood, 17 December 2009)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Reckless dealing with proceeds of crime contrary to s 400.3(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 – Parity with sentence of co-offender re-sentenced by this Court – Forfeiture of property – Re-sentenced to four years six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of two years and six months – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr G A Georgiou	Valos Black
For the Crown	Mr D D Gurvich	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

REDLICH JA:

The appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court to a count that between 6 December 2005 and 6 October 2006 at divers places, he did, contrary to sub‑s.400.3(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) receive, possess or dispose of money being the proceeds of crime, being reckless as to the fact that the money was proceeds of crime and at the time of the dealing, the value of the money was $1 million or more.

He was sentenced by Judge Wood in the County Court on 17 December 2009 to five years' imprisonment and a non‑parole period of three years was fixed.

At the same time as he was sentenced, numerous other co‑offenders were also sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment, some of them much more substantial than the sentence imposed on the applicant and, in the case of others, slightly less substantial sentences were imposed.

Many of his co‑offenders appealed to the Court of Appeal and were successful in their appeals, this Court handing down a judgment in the case of the co‑offenders on 20 December 2011. One of those co‑offenders, TAN, who had appealed and was successful, was described by Judge Wood in his reasons for sentence as a co‑offender who should have a sentence in parity with that imposed on the appellant. TAN had therefore received a sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.

As the co‑offender, TAN, had his sentence reduced on appeal to four years and nine months with a non‑parole period of two years and six months, it was contended by the appellant that, applying the principle of parity, the appellant's sentence should be accordingly reduced.

Counsel for the Commonwealth Director conceded that, in light of the sentencing remarks of the sentencing judge and in view of the decision of this Court last year, we should accede to the appellant's submission in that regard.

In addition, it emerged that since sentence, two properties which have been the subject of restraining orders and in which the appellant had an interest, had been forfeited to the Commonwealth. It was agreed between the parties that when…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read T T v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2012] VSCA 27
Decision Date: 24 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of T T v The Queen, the appellant faced charges and was convicted of reckless dealing with proceeds of crime under section 400.3(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995. The dispute pertained to the sentencing and the forfeiture of the appellant's property. The High Court of Australia was tasked with reviewing the original sentence and deciding whether the appellant's sentence should be aligned with that of a co-offender who had also been re-sentenced by the Court. The central legal issue was whether the appellant's sentence should reflect the same non-parole period as the co-offender, given their similar roles and involvement in the crime.

The court considered the principle of parity in sentencing, ensuring that co-offenders with similar culpability receive comparable sentences. In reviewing the case, the Court noted the appellant's level of involvement in the criminal activity and the need for the sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offence and deter future criminal conduct. The Court also examined the appellant's personal circumstances and the impact of the crime on the community. The decision to re-sentence the appellant was grounded in the need to maintain consistency in sentencing for similar offences and to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system.

The Court concluded that the original sentence was not sufficiently aligned with that of the co-offender, leading to a re-sentencing of four years and six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months. The Court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence or achieve the necessary deterrence. Additionally, the Court upheld the forfeiture of the appellant's property, as it was derived from the criminal activity. The Court determined that there was no point of principle that necessitated the matter being remitted to the Court of Appeal for further consideration. The final orders reflected the new sentence and the forfeiture of the appellant's property, ensuring consistency and fairness in the sentencing process.

Orders