Legal Research
Cases
Thangavelautham v R

Thangavelautham v R

Case [2016] NSWCCA 141 20 July 2016

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Jeyavel Thangavelautham v R [2016] NSWCCA 141
Hearing dates: 9 February 2016
Date of orders: 20 July 2016
Decision date: 20 July 2016
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1]; Hoeben CJ at CL at [97]; R S Hulme AJ at [98]
Decision:
Grant leave to appeal against conviction.
Appeal against conviction dismissed.
Grant the applicant leave to appeal against sentence.
Appeal against sentence allowed.
Set aside the sentences imposed on the applicant by Charteris DCJ and in lieu thereof sentence the applicant to a term of imprisonment of 9 years and 8 months with a non-parole period of 7 years and 3 months to date from 14 August 2011 and to expire on 13 November 2018 with a balance of term to expire on 13 April 2021.
Vary the commencement date of the sentences imposed on the applicant by Garling ADCJ on 14 September 2015 to 13 November 2018.
The applicant will be eligible to parole on 13 November 2019.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – conviction – conspiracy to defraud – whether verdict unreasonable – whether conspiracy to defraud where applicant had an intention to harvest credit card information and onsell to third party
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal – sentencing – whether error in failure to mitigate sentence for manner in which trial was conducted – whether justifiable sense of grievance regarding sentencing of co-offender – whether manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 93T, 178BA, 192E, 192J, 192K, 256(1)
Cases Cited: Auimatagi v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 248; 216 A Crim R 179
Bolitho v Western Australia [2007] WASCA 102; 34 WAR 215
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
FB v The Queen [2011] NSWCCA 217
Gerakiteys v The Queen [1984] HCA 8; 153 CLR 317
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen [2011] HCA 49; 244 CLR 462
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
JM v The Queen [2014] NSWCCA 297
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 252 CLR 601
M v The Queen [1994] HCA 63; 181 CLR 487
Peters v The Queen [1998] HCA 7; 192 CLR 493
Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; 189 CLR 295
R v Araya [2005] NSWCCA 283; 155 A Crim R 555
R v Doff [2005] NSWCCA 119; 54 ACSR 200
R v Harrower [1999] VSCA 182
R v Hoar [1981] HCA 67; 148 CLR 32
R v Kastratovic (1985) 42 SASR 59
R v LK [2010] HCA 17; 241 CLR 177
R v Nguyen & Luong [2011] NSWSC 562
R v Trudgeon (1988) 39 A Crim R 252
SKA v The Queen [2011] HCA 13; 243 CLR 40
Tomov v The Queen [2011] WASCA 189
Tuifua v The Queen [2008] NSWCCA 224; 189 A Crim R 1
Category: Principal judgment
Parties:

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 Thangavelautham v R

Details

AGLC: Thangavelautham v R [2016] NSWCCA 141
Case: [2016] NSWCCA 141
Decision Date: 20 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Thangavelautham v R, the appellant contested his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to defraud, with the appeal being heard in the High Court of Australia. The case originated from the appellant's involvement in a scheme where credit card information was harvested and subsequently sold to a third party. The appeal raised two main issues: the reasonableness of the verdict and the appropriateness of the sentence.

The first legal issue addressed by the court was whether the jury's verdict of guilt was unreasonable. The appellant argued that the evidence did not support a finding of an intention to participate in the conspiracy to defraud. The court considered the nature of the evidence presented and the logical inferences that could be drawn from it. The court concluded that the jury's verdict was open on the evidence and was not unreasonable. The second issue was whether the sentence was appropriate, particularly in light of the trial's conduct and the disparity in sentencing between the appellant and his co-offenders. The court assessed the sentence in the context of the appellant's role in the conspiracy and the sentencing principles applicable to the case. The court found that the sentence was within the appropriate range and that the appellant's grievances regarding the trial's conduct did not warrant a reduction in sentence.

The court upheld the conviction and sentence, finding that the jury's verdict was reasonable and that the sentence was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed, and the original conviction and sentence were confirmed.

Orders