Legal Research
Cases
Wong v The Queen

Wong v The Queen

Case [2013] VSCA 52 13 March 2013

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0176

LAI YEAN WONG	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	TATE and PRIEST JJA and VICKERY AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	20 February 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	13 March 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 52
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	The Queen v Wong (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Gullaci, 29 May 2012)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – Appellant convicted on a total of nine counts - Five relating to dealing with money, being $100,000 or more, reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime contrary to s 400.9(1) of the Criminal CodeAct1995 (Cth), one of dealing with money, being less than $100,000, which was reasonably suspected to be the proceeds of crime contrary to s 400.9(1A) of the Criminal CodeAct1995 (Cth), one of one charge of possessing a false foreign travel document contrary to s 22(1) of the Foreign Passports (Law Enforcement and Security) Act 2005 (Cth), one charge of possessing false documents, namely credit cards, contrary to s 83A(5) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and one charge of possessing a thing to falsify documents contrary to s 83A(5A) of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) - Two grounds of appeal – Whether judge erred in making findings of fact about the role of appellant in the criminal enterprise and the benefit he stood to gain – Whether total effective Commonwealth sentences of four years nine months was manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms F H Todd	Emma Turnbull Criminal Law
For the Crown	Mr D D Gurvich	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

TATE JA:

I have had the benefit of reading in draft the reasons of Priest JA. I agree that the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons given by his Honour.

PRIEST JA:

Introduction

For reasons that follow, in my opinion this appeal against sentence[1] should be dismissed.
[1]Leave to appeal was granted by a judge of this Court on 13 November 2012.

Charges and sentences

On 23 May 2012 the appellant was arraigned in the County Court at Melbourne and pleaded guilty to an indictment containing five charges of dealing with money, being $100,000 or more, which was reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime (counts 1 to 5); one charge of dealing with money, being less than $100,000, which was reasonably suspected to be the proceeds of crime (count 6); one charge of possessing a false foreign travel document (count 7); one charge of possessing false documents, being credit cards (count 8); and one charge of possessing a thing to falsify documents (count 9). As will be seen from the Table below, counts 1 to 7 concern Commonwealth offences, and counts 8 and 9 concern State offences.

The sentencing judge said that he intended that the total effective term for the State offences would be 24 months’ imprisonment, with 12 months to serve before becoming eligible for parole;…

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 Wong v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Wong v The Queen [2013] VSCA 52
Case: [2013] VSCA 52
Decision Date: 13 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wong v The Queen involved an appellant who had been convicted on a total of nine counts. Five of these counts related to dealing with money suspected to be proceeds of crime, two of which involved amounts over $100,000. One count involved an amount under $100,000. The appellant was also found guilty of possessing a false foreign travel document, possessing false credit cards, and possessing a thing to falsify documents. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The appeal raised two primary issues. The first concerned whether the trial judge had erred in making findings of fact regarding the appellant's role in the criminal enterprise and the benefits he stood to gain. The second issue was whether the total effective sentence of four years and nine months imposed by the Commonwealth was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate given the circumstances of the case.

In its reasoning, the High Court found that the trial judge's findings of fact were well-supported by the evidence presented at trial. The court rejected the appellant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court determined that the sentence was within the range of appropriate punishments for the crimes committed and did not constitute an error in the exercise of judicial discretion. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The final orders of the court affirmed the decision of the lower court, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant. The appellant was found guilty on all nine counts and the sentence of four years and nine months was upheld as appropriate. The court's decision emphasised the importance of judicial discretion in sentencing and the need to consider all relevant factors in such cases.

Orders