YF v Regina - [2016] NSWDC 175

District Court

New South Wales

Case Name:	YF v Regina
Medium Neutral Citation:	[2016] NSWDC 175
Hearing Date(s):	16 June, 5 August 2016
Date of Orders:	19 August 2016
Decision Date:	19 August 2016
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge AC Scotting
Decision:	1. The time for filing the Notice of Motion is extended to 27 May 2016. 2. The application for a stay of the indictment is refused
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – deal with money suspected of being proceeds of crime – serious indictable offence PROCEDURE – notice of motion to remit matter to be dealt with in the Children’s Court – stay of indictment– age of offender – jurisdiction of the court – purposes of relevant legislation - interpretation
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth) ss.16A(2),20C Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth) s.400.9(1) Children (Criminal Proceedings) Act 1987 (NSW) ss.6, 10, 15A, 18, 20, 44 Clause 8 Criminal Procedure Regulation 2010
Cases Cited:	Maxwell v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 501 Regina v Anthony James Stanton (1991) 52 A Crim R 164 Walton v Gardiner (1993) 177 CLR 378, 392-3; Jago v District Court (NSW) (1989) 168 CLR 23; Barton v The Queen (1980) 147 CLR 75. Barron v Attorney-General (1987) 10 NSWLR 215. Williams v Spautz (1992) 174 CLR 509, 520. Director of Public Prosecutions v PM [2006] NSWCCA 297 R v GDP (1991) 53 A Crim R 112 Elias v The Queen (2013) 87 ALJR 895
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Regina (Respondent) YF (Applicant)
Representation:	Counsel: Mr Norrie (Applicant) Ms McEinery (Respondent) Solicitors: Newtons law (Applicant) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)
File Number(s):	2015/00117482

JUDGMENT

YF (the applicant) seeks a stay of these proceedings.
On 23 October 2015 the applicant pleaded guilty before his Honour Judge Blackmore to the single count pleaded in the indictment being a charge of dealing with cash in excess of $100,000 being reasonably suspected of being the proceeds of crime, contrary to section 400.9(1) Criminal Code (Cth). The maximum penalty for the offence is imprisonment for 3 years and/or a fine of $30,600.
It is common ground that between 23 July 2014 and 8 December 2014 the applicant received cash amounting to the sum of $4,059,636 and deposited it into various bank accounts on 68 occasions in Perth, Brisbane and Sydney at the direction of a co-offender, Shiyu Cong. Up and until 30 August 2014 the applicant was a young person. He dealt with the sum of $2,823,336 in cash between 23 July 2014 and 26 August 2014, when he was aged 17. He dealt with the sum of $1,236,300 in cash between 9 September 2014 and 8 December 2014, when he was aged 18.
The basis of the application for the stay is that by proceeding on the single count covering a period before and after he reached the age of 18 that the proceedings are an abuse of process because the applicant is being denied the protections afforded to him by the provisions 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 YF v Regina

Details

AGLC: YF v Regina [2016] NSWDC 175
Case: [2016] NSWDC 175
Decision Date: 19 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, YF, has appealed against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which dismissed a motion to remit the matter to be dealt with in the Children's Court. YF had been charged with a serious indictable offence of dealing with money suspected of being proceeds of crime. The dispute centred on the age of the offender and the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to deal with the matter. The court was required to determine whether the appellant's age rendered the Supreme Court's jurisdiction over the matter invalid and whether the matter should be remitted to the Children's Court.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide included whether the appellant's age rendered the Supreme Court's jurisdiction invalid and whether the purposes of the relevant legislation required the matter to be remitted to the Children's Court. The court also had to consider the interpretation of the relevant legislation and the principles of justice that should guide the decision. The court found that the appellant's age did not render the Supreme Court's jurisdiction invalid as the offence in question was a serious indictable offence. The court also found that the purposes of the relevant legislation did not require the matter to be remitted to the Children's Court.

The court refused the application for a stay of the indictment. The court found that the appellant's age did not render the Supreme Court's jurisdiction invalid, and the purposes of the relevant legislation did not require the matter to be remitted to the Children's Court. The court also found that the principles of justice did not require the matter to be remitted to the Children's Court. The court held that the appellant's age was not a sufficient ground to remit the matter to the Children's Court, and the serious nature of the offence warranted the matter to be dealt with in the Supreme Court. The court also noted that the appellant had been given an opportunity to present his case in the Children's Court, but had chosen not to do so.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time for filing the Notice of Motion is extended to 27 May 2016.

2. The application for a stay of the indictment is refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.