Legal Research
Cases
Yeonata v The Queen

Yeonata v The Queen

Case [2012] NSWCCA 211 11 December 2012

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Yeonata v R [2012] NSWCCA 211
Hearing dates: 20 September 2012
Decision date: 11 December 2012
Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]
Johnson J at [2]
Davies J at [3]
Decision:
(1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Appeal allowed.
(3) Quash the sentences imposed by Judge Finnane on 11 March 2011.
(4) In lieu, sentence the Appellant as follows, taking into account relevant Form 1 offences and s 16BA offences on applicable counts:
(a) For sequences 67 - 69, 74, 78, 82, 98, 112 and 131 - a non parole period of 1 year commencing 3 March 2010 and expiring 2 March 2011 with an additional term of 4 months expiring 2 July 2011;
(b) For sequences 71, 76, 77, 80, 81, 101, 107, 132 and 135 - a non parole period of 1 year and 6 months commencing 3 December 2010 and expiring 2 June 2012 with an additional term of 6 months expiring 2 December 2012;
(c) For sequences 38, 64, 66, 70, 72, 73, 75, 100, 108, 118, 119 134 and 136 - a non-parole period of 2 years commencing 3 December 2011 and expiring 2 December 2013 with an additional term of 8 months expiring 2 August 2014;
(d) For sequences 65, 79, 99, 102 and 133 - a non-parole period of 2 years and 3 months commencing 3 December 2012 and expiring 2 March 2015 with an additional term of 1 year and 8 months expiring 2 November 2016.
(e) For sequence 7 - a fixed term of 9 months imprisonment commencing 3 March 2010 and expiring 2 December 2010;
(f) For sequence 34 - a fixed term of 9 months imprisonment commencing 3 June 2010 and expiring 2 March 2011;
(g) For sequence 126 - a fixed term of 9 months imprisonment commencing 3 September 2010 and expiring 2 June 2011.
(5) In respect of sequences 65, 79, 99, 102 and 133 direct that the Appellant be released to parole on 2 March 2015.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - 37 counts of dealing with the proceeds of crime -other offences involving identity theft - multiple Form 1 offences - whether overall sentence manifestly excessive - foreign national - relevance of deportation at conclusion of non-parole period - sentencing for multiple offences - approach to sentencing for identity theft offences
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988
Cases Cited: Clarke v R [2009] NSWCCA 49
Collier v R [2012] NSWCCA 213
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v AB (No 2) [2011] NSWCCA 256
R v Fraser [2000] NSWCCA 97
R v Guo [2010] NSWCCA 170
R v GWM [2012] NSWCCA 240
R v MAK [2006] NSWCCA 381; (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
R v Swadling [2004] NSWCCA 421
R v Van Hong Pham [2005] NSWCCA 94
Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260
Van Haltren v…

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 Yeonata v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Yeonata v The Queen [2012] NSWCCA 211
Case: [2012] NSWCCA 211
Decision Date: 11 December 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Yeonata v The Queen involved the appellant, Yeonata, who was convicted of 37 counts of dealing with the proceeds of crime, along with other offences involving identity theft. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive. The appellant, a foreign national, also argued that the potential deportation at the conclusion of his non-parole period should have been taken into account in sentencing. The court had to consider the approach to sentencing for identity theft offences and the cumulative effect of multiple Form 1 offences.

The court addressed the appellant's argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive by examining the totality of the offences and the principles of cumulative sentencing. It assessed whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed. The court also considered the relevance of the appellant's foreign nationality and the potential for deportation, but found that these factors did not alter the severity of the sentence. In relation to the identity theft offences, the court examined the specific nature of these crimes and how they should be weighed in the sentencing process. It concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the scale and impact of the appellant's criminal activities.

In determining the sentence, the court applied the principles of cumulative sentencing, which allow for an overall sentence that reflects the combined effect of multiple offences. It considered the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of each offence, ensuring that the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was justified by the appellant's extensive criminal conduct. The potential for deportation was noted but did not mitigate the severity of the sentence.

The High Court ultimately affirmed the sentence imposed on the appellant, finding that it was not manifestly excessive. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering the totality of the offences and the specific nature of identity theft crimes in the sentencing process. The final orders of the court upheld the sentence and dismissed the appeal.

Orders