Nguyen v R

Court of Criminal Appeal (NSW)|2019-03-01|Before: Leeming JA, Harrison J, Davies J

Judgment

LEEMING JA: Ms Linda Lien Nguyen seeks leave to appeal from a sentence of 14 months imprisonment, with release after 9 months on a recognisance to be of good behaviour for the balance of the term, following her plea of guilty to one offence of dealing with money in excess of $100,000 reasonably suspected of being proceeds of crime, contrary to s 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The sentence was imposed on 3 July 2018. The nine month period of imprisonment will expire on 2 April 2019. Ms Nguyen's notice of application for leave to appeal was only filed on 4 December 2018 (after more than half of the 9 month period had been served). Her appeal was called over on 13 December 2018 and allocated a date for hearing on 1 March 2019. This Court had the benefit of written submissions provided in advance of the hearing, and full oral submissions on the day, following which, this Court granted leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal. These are my reasons for joining in that order.
The sentencing hearing proceeded by way of statement of agreed facts, including the following: "2. On 24 December 2014, the Australian Crime Commission began intercepting the offender's mobile telephone as part of a joint investigation with Australian Federal Police into her suspected involvement in money laundering. 3. Investigators identified that from 24 January 2015, the offender was in contact by telephone with: • a Vietnamese-speaking male called Trung (TRUNG); • a Vietnamese-speaking female called My (MY); and • a second Vietnamese-speaking male who has not been identified (UM1). 4. In recorded phone calls, the offender had discussions about an upcoming monetary transaction, which was scheduled to take place on 30 January 2015. 5. In the days leading up to 30 January 2015, the offender discussed a number of matters relating to the transaction by telephone with TRUNG, MY and UM1: • She discussed the date and time when the transaction was to occur - 30 January 2015 at 2:00 pm Sydney time (being 10:00 am in Vietnam). She confirmed the date and time separately with TRUNG, MY, and UM1. • She discussed with MY and TRUNG arrangements for a corresponding monetary transaction which was to take place in Vietnam on the same day at the same time. She said to MY, 'You get in touch with that person and ... that person will talk to me and once the deal is done over there and over here I'll deliver the money.' • She provided MY with TRUNG's name and contact details and facilitated a meeting between them. • She told MY that she had two phone numbers, but that she couldn't talk on her main number. She said that if MY needed to chat, she should contact her on the number that she was calling from. • She discussed with TRUNG recent fluctuations in the currency exchange rate between AUD and Vietnamese Dong. She said that she had told an unknown party that the 'rate' would be fixed only on the morning of the transaction. She told MY that she would make the transaction meeting time 10:00 am (Vietnamese time) as she was concerned the 'rate' would not be stable earlier in the morning. • She discussed with TRUNG the 'fee' to be paid in relation to the transaction. TRUNG told her, 'I'll collect it at this end and I'll enter it in the book for you, right? The fee is yours and it will always be yours, right sister.' 6. Following these discussions, on 29 January 2015, at about 1:31 pm, the offender received a telephone call from MY: Offender: Hello My -Phonetic- mm it's me. MY: Um there's an address for the recipient now. Er seven hundred and fifty thousand (750,000) fixed. Offender: Confirming seven hundred and fifty (750), right? I'll notify them. Mm. MY: Yes. Offender: Confirming 750, okay my dear. MY: Yes. Offender: Alright. MY: Now the address of the recipient, the name and number of the girl contact over there, where do I text it to you, through Viber? Offender: Um text it to this phone, text it over to this number for me, please. My: Text it to this number, right? Message this number, right? Offender: Yeah, message through to this number. MY: In Viber once you read it, can you delete it right away? Offender: Um - no, just text it over to this number. Just text it to this number for me please. MY: Yes. Yes. Offender: Yeah okay My, bye my dear. MY: Yes. 7. At 2:20pm, she spoke to MY again. MY provided her with the address xxx Crown Street, Surry Hills and a mobile telephone number for 'Kelly' (KELLY). The offender said that the suburb Surry Hills was not familiar to her. 8. At 2:26 pm, the offender called KELLY, and at 2:44 pm she received a call from KELLY. Later, at 8:55 pm and again at 9:42 pm she spoke to MY. 9. The following day at 11:00 am, the offender sent a text message to UM1, and provided him with the address "yy St Georges Crescent Drummoyne". 10. At about 2:09 pm, investigators observed the offender in the front passenger seat of a dark coloured BMW (NSW registration BJQ18W) travelling on St Georges Crescent, Drummoyne. The vehicle turned into the driveway of yy St Georges Crescent. After entering the driveway, the vehicle continued out of sight. Four minutes later at 2:13 pm investigators observed a second vehicle (NSW registration AU70UE) enter the driveway and continue out of sight. The offender was observed in the company of her de facto Mr Clarence Toma. The pair were observed at the front of the premises at yy St Georges Crescent and were then seen walking back down the driveway of those premises and out of sight. 11. At 2:31pm the offender had a telephone conversation with TRUNG: Trung: Sister Lien. -Phonetic- Offender: Listen my dear, Trung: Yes. Offender: Um I only receive um seven fifty (750) only, is there anything else, any money in relation to anything else? Trung: No, no, you deliver what you have received, you get 750, you deliver 750 to the client please, sister. Offender: Is that right? Trung: Yes. Offender: Yeah okay. Trung: Yes yes. Offender: Alright, alright, alright. Trung: Yes, check for 750 and deliver to the client right away, How long before you're done? Hello? Offender: Only just collected from this person now. Give me a bit more time and I'll be done. Trung: How long is a bit more? Offender: Fifteen (15) minutes more. Trung: About how long? Offender: Fifteen (15), twenty (20) minutes. Alright? Trung: Fifteen more minutes and you're done? Alright, alright, try to be as quick as possible. Make it a priority for me (wds) Offender: -Overtalks-I know, I understand oh my God. 12. At 2:34 pm she sent a text message to UMl stating: I received 750k 13. At 2:37 pm investigators observed the dark coloured BMW vehicle drive out of the driveway of yy St Georges Crescent. The offender's de facto Mr Toma was driving and the offender was in the front passenger seat. The vehicle was followed by investigators from Drummoyne to Crown Street, Surry Hills. 14. At 2:57 pm Mr Toma was observed double-parked in front of the premises at xxx Crown Street, Surry Hills. The offender was observed to get out of the vehicle and remove a black bag from the boot. She was seen to carry that bag to the front door of xxx Crown Street. 15. The offender did not enter xxx Crown Street and at 3:06 pm she remained outside the front door. Mr Toma was seen to approach the offender and hand her something. 16. Shortly thereafter police approached the offender. She was observed to be in possession of two mobile telephones, a white iPhone and black Nokia. She told police that she had received $750,000 earlier that day from an Asian male. She knew that it was that amount because the Asian male told her. She was to be paid $2,000 to deliver the $750,000 to xxx Crown Street. 17. She explained that when she first arrived at xxx Crown Street she had called KELLY and been told to wait because there were other people delivering money to KELLY at that time. She said KELLY had suggested that she leave the money at the front door, but the offender was concerned about doing that. 18. She identified for investigators two bags which she said had been provided to her earlier that day by the Asian male. They were each in her possession at the front door of xxx Crown Street when first approached by police. Each bag was opened by police and found to contain amounts of Australian currency. 19. Later forensic analysis revealed the total amount of cash money inside the bags to be $745,050 with a further $800 in counterfeit bank notes. 20. An examination of the offender's black Nokia phone identified that it contained a sim card linked to the telephone number that was being intercepted by police. Forensic analysis of the phone revealed that between 26 November 2014 and 20 January 2015, the offender had received 20 text messages from TRUNG containing different names, bank account details, and monetary amounts. The Crown is not in a position to prove that these communications relate to the commission of criminal offences."

Which written submission was before the sentencing judge?

The Crown had served two sets of written submissions. Neither was signed and neither was dated. One was included in the appeal books, the other was tendered when the appeal was heard.
It was accepted that the submission contained in the appeal books was the later version. It made reference to a letter of assistance provided by the Australian Federal Police in relation to Ms Nguyen's cooperation, which was absent from the earlier version.
Mr Ramage QC nonetheless submitted that it had not been established that the later version had been before the sentencing judge. The submission was not accompanied by any evidence (for example, from those who had appeared before the sentencing judge). Neither counsel who appeared in this Court had appeared before the sentencing judge.
I reject that submission. As Ms Avery-Williams submitted, parts of his Honour's reasons are consistent only with his Honour relying upon the later version. One example is a sentence in his reasons: "whilst the offender told the police when she was arrested that she was to be paid $2000, as the Crown pointed out this was not substantiated by any other evidence …". In the earlier document, there is no reference to the $2000, nor the absence of any substantiation of that claim. In the later document, paragraph 22 contains, verbatim, the submission summarised by the sentencing judge in his reasons. Further, any other inference is, with respect, highly improbable. Plainly, an updated document reflecting the letter of assistance - which was an important, and new, matter in the sentencing - had been prepared by the Crown. It is improbable in the extreme that efforts would have been taken to prepare the document, only not to rely upon it at the hearing, and instead rely upon the document which had been superseded.

Reasons of the sentencing judge

The sentencing judge summarised the agreed facts and then separately addressed the seriousness of the offence, and Ms Nguyen's subjective circumstances. In light of the submissions made in support of proposed ground 2, it is as well to reproduce the entirety of his Honour's reasons of the seriousness of the offence: "Seriousness of the offence The following matters are significant to an assessment of the seriousness of the offence: a. It involved one act of dealing on 30 January 2015 in relation to $745,050 of physical currency. b. This amount of cash was 7.45 times the minimum amount of $100,000 constituting this offence. c. Although the offender's role on the day of the transaction assumed a courier type function by transporting the cash, as the Crown submitted, the offender's overall role was far more extensive and performed a vital task to ensure its success. As the Crown highlighted in her submissions, the offender's conduct involved: 1. Being in close contact with people in Vietnam with whom she arranged the date and time of the Australian money exchange and discussed arrangements to ensure the Australian exchange would correspond with an identical transaction in Vietnam. 2. Introducing and then facilitating a meeting between two people in Vietnam, My and Trung, who were to engage in the corresponding money exchange in Vietnam. 3. In the lead up to the transaction she monitored the exchange rate between the Australian dollar and the Vietnamese Dong and organised the money exchange to occur at a time that would optimise the exchange differential. 4. Being aware prior to the transaction that it would involve a large sum of money, being approximately $750,000. 5. Being given an address for the money exchange by a person in Vietnam prior to the day of the transaction and liaising with Australian based "Kelly" who was to be the receiver of the funds to organise the meeting. 6. Travelling on the day of the transaction to an address in Sydney, picking up the money and relaying the money to others. 7. Receiving a large amount of physical currency being A$745,000. She transported the cash in the car to the pre-arranged dropoff address. 8. Operating two phones, one of which was used to conduct her business in relation to the currency exchange and directing people to speak about the money transaction only on that particular phone. d. The offence was planned and involved precision in executing the transaction as the exchange involved a co-ordinated simultaneous transaction in Vietnam with a set exchange rate. e. I find her motivation in committing the offence was for reward. Whilst the offender told the police when she was arrested that she was to be paid $2,000, as the Crown pointed out this was not substantiated by any other evidence and I am unable to make a finding precisely how much she was to receive for her efforts. Whilst the offence involved, as I mentioned earlier, one act of dealing on 30 January 2015 in relation to $745,050 of physical currency it does not represent a momentary lapse of judgment. As the Crown noted in her written submissions, the offender's activities leading up to the offence reflect her knowledge of the details of the enterprise. I consider the seriousness of the offence falls well into the middle of the range of seriousness of offences of this type. General deterrence is regarded as being of particular significance when sentencing for money laundering offences. As the Crown points out that the 'mirror' transactions had the potential to allow money to be moved internationally between parties without the need for the currency to actually cross international borders. As a result there is no record of the transaction and it avoids reporting systems monitoring international money transactions".
His Honour thereafter summarised Ms Nguyen's subjective circumstances. The summary included the following. Ms Nguyen was not a person of prior good character, having been convicted of some relatively minor offences but including some involving fraud (dishonestly gaining benefit or advantage and possession of tainted property, and a conviction for delivering a document containing false information in 2016). She had been born in and lived her early life in North Vietnam, raised by her mother and stepfather, and witnessed armed conflict in the 1970s as a child. After completing secondary education and part of a Bachelor of Economics degree at a university in Hanoi, she came to Australia in 1994 with her sister. She met her first husband in 1995, and has a 21 year old daughter and a 19 year old son, both of whom are studying and working part time. She was divorced in 2000 and there was evidence of her being subjected to domestic violence in the marriage. Ms Nguyen remarried in 2003, but separated from her second husband in 2012. There was psychological evidence that she was suffering from a major depressive disorder as well as a generalised anxiety disorder, in part contributed to by the offending but in part dating from events of her earlier life.
The sentencing judge addressed the issue of contrition by concluding: "I do not consider there was deep and immediate contrition but find she has shown emerging contrition reflected in what is recorded in the June 2018 pre-sentence report and her willingness to assist the authorities".
His Honour then dealt with the question of assistance as follows: "A letter of assistance has been provided by the Australian Federal Police concerning the offender's co-operation with law enforcement. The offender was arrested for the offence on 30 January 2015. She pleaded guilty on 23 January 2017 when she offered to assist law enforcement authorities. The assistance provided was of low level. The offender made a further offer of assistance in June 2017 and, accordingly, the sentencing proceedings were adjourned. This assistance was of little practical value. There is no suggestion that her assistance has placed herself or others in danger."
His Honour found that prospects of rehabilitation were good and that she was of a low risk of reoffending, based on her limited criminal history, her good employment history, and the fact that she had sought counselling for her emotional issues.
After making reference to s 16A of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the sentencing judge addressed the timing of her guilty plea as follows: "The offender entered her plea of guilty on Monday 23 January 2017 being a week prior to the matter being listed for trial on Monday [30] January 2017. As the Crown highlighted this was two years after her arrest. On the other hand Mr Jones submitted the offender made significant admissions at the time of her arrest and the delay in her pleading guilty arose from a failure to appreciate that the offence involved no requirement by the prosecution to prove knowledge by the offender that the money was the proceeds of crime. I allow a combined discount of 15 per cent to the sentence that I would otherwise have imposed for her plea of guilty and her assistance. I have given a combined discount because I do not consider it possible or appropriate to separate a discreet discount for each of these items".
The sentencing judge referred to Ms Nguyen's mother not being in good health but considered that that fact and her own depression did not constitute sufficient hardship to operate as a mitigating factor.
In the final section of his reasons, under the heading "Appropriate sentence", the sentencing judge addressed a submission that the matter could be dealt with other than by full time custody. The submission was based upon the absence of a fault element, the offence created by s 400.9(1) falling almost at the lowest end of the money laundering offences, the fact that there was only one act of dealing, her immediate admissions to the police and her cooperation with authorities in her subjective case. The sentencing judge then concluded: "Money laundering is, however, a serious offence. The amount involved here was $745,050 and more than seven times above the monetary threshold for this offence. The offender's role involved her performing vital tasks and she was certainly more than a mere 'courier'. The offence was planned and involved precision in executing the transaction as the exchange involved a mirror transaction in Vietnam with a set exchange rate. I consider no other sentence than a term of imprisonment is warranted. I consider the appropriate sentence is a term for 14 months commencing today with release after 9 months upon entry by the offender into a recognisance under s 19AC of the Crimes Act Commonwealth to be of good behaviour for 5 months."

The appeal against sentence

Ms Nguyen has a right to appeal, with leave, against the sentence imposed on her, pursuant to s 5(1)(c) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW). She sought leave in relation to the following three proposed grounds of appeal: "1. The sentencing judge erred in dealing with the Applicant's plea and assistance; 2. The sentencing judge erred in his determination of objective criminality; 3. Manifest excess."

Ground 1 - the discount for Ms Nguyen's plea and assistance

Mr Ramage advanced two principal submissions in support of proposed ground 1. The first was that the sentencing judge had not had regard to the utilitarian benefit of Ms Nguyen's plea of guilty. It was in support of that submission that he sought to rely upon the absence of any reference to Xiao v R (2018) 96 NSWLR 1; [2018] NSWCCA 4 in the (earlier) form of written submissions supplied by the Crown, just as any reference to that decision was absent from the sentencing judge's reasons. Secondly, he submitted that there was error in allowing a combined discount of 15 per cent. It was said that considerations of transparency required the sentencing judge separately to identify the discount allowed for the guilty plea and the assistance provided to authorities. It was put thus: "Now, the basis on which one should know what one gets for a plea and the element of assistance is clearly that you should be aware, not only should the person being sentenced should be aware, but the court considering the sentence should be aware how much is being allowed. Now, to simply say 'I can't say how much but it's 15% for both' is not really a sufficient answer to that problem."
Mr Ramage relied in particular upon Jinde Huang aka Wei Liu v R [2018] NSWCCA 70, an appeal heard concurrently with, but decided after, Xiao, where the sentencing judge had allowed a range of "between 5 per cent and 10 per cent" for one offence and a discount of "between 10 per cent and 15 per cent" for another offence.
Mr Ramage also relied on what had been said by Hodgson JA in R v Bugeja [2001] NSWCCA 196 concerning the desirability of taking into account the utilitarian value of a plea in a Commonwealth case, and in particular his Honour's statement at [25] that "it is generally appropriate to make it clear that such a utilitarian discount is being given, and to express the amount of that discount".
Although his written submissions had mentioned s 16AC of the Crimes Act, his oral submission did not rely on any breach of statute, and when asked by Davies J whether he relied on that provision, which dealt with future co-operation, he accepted as much ("that's why I should resile from that submission") (transcript, 1 March 2019, p 7).
I do not accept Mr Ramage's submissions.
True it is that in many cases it is desirable, as aiding to the transparency invoked by Ms Nguyen, separately to identify the factors contributing to the total discount. But it does not follow that there is appellable error in taking the approach adopted by the sentencing judge of giving a combined discount. The passage in R v Bugeja on which reliance was placed was framed in terms of a desirable but not inflexible practice, rather than a rule which gave rise to error if breached. In any event, as I sought to point out during the hearing, this Court in Xiao explained the changing approach to s 16A, commencing with R v Bugeja, at [246]ff, including noting that Hodgson JA gave no consideration to the construction of s 16A(2)(g).
Next, as was pointed out by Harrison J during the hearing, Ms Nguyen's submission is inconsistent with what was held in Xiao and Jinde Huang. At [4] of the latter decision, Bathurst CJ stated, by reference to what had been held in Xiao at [280] that: "it was desirable, in the interests of transparency, to disclose the actual percentage discount given, although failure to do so would not of itself amount to an error".
There was in the present case no range, which was the vice in Jinde Huang. It was clear that precisely 15 % was allowed for the combined discount attributable to the plea of guilty and assistance falling outside the scope of s 16AC. It is difficult, with respect, to see how acceptance of Ms Nguyen's submission could be reconciled with what was held in Xiao and confirmed in Jinde Huang.
I would also reject the submission that the sentencing judge failed to take into account the utilitarian benefit of the guilty plea. It is true that there is some lack in clarity as to whether the utilitarian value of the plea, as opposed to its demonstration of Ms Nguyen's subjective willingness to facilitate the course of justice, was taken into account. The words "plea of guilty" in the immediate context of the reasons for sentencing are capable of referring to either or both factors. But I think that on balance the sentencing judge was referring to both factors.
The combined discount was 15%. The sentencing judge found that the assistance provided to the authorities was of a low level (it did not contribute to any arrests, seizure or disruption of criminal activities). The sentencing judge also made a qualified finding as to Ms Nguyen's subjective case, in that he did "not consider that there was deep and immediate contrition" but rather that there was "emerging contrition". The utilitarian value of a guilty plea one week before trial, and some two years after she was charged, was low.
When there is ambiguity in the reasons for sentence, regard may be had to the submissions to which they responded. Here the Crown's written submissions expressly referred to Xiao and the lateness of the plea, submitting that "consequently there is only a low utilitarian value to the plea" which, in light of the strong Crown case, represented a "recognition of the inevitable". There was some implicit acknowledgement of the force of those submissions by the defence. Counsel who appeared for Ms Nguyen before the sentencing judge said that she was "entitled to the utility of a plea of guilty" and that she was "entitled to a discount for utility of a plea. It is not 25% but ... she is entitled to a discount of 15 to 20% and I respectfully submit it would be towards the upper end towards 20% for her plea".
It will be seen that the issue of discount was a very narrow one. It was common ground before the sentencing judge that Ms Nguyen was entitled to a discount. It was common ground that the discount included a discount for the utilitarian value of her plea. It was common ground that her plea was late, and that the discount to which she was entitled was to be reduced on that account. It was common ground that Ms Nguyen was also entitled to a discount for assistance, but that its value was low. In circumstances where there was such a high level of common ground, little is required by way of reasons.
Taking all those considerations into account, I do not consider that it has been established that the sentencing judge departed from the common position of the parties and failed to incorporate any discount for the utilitarian value of Ms Nguyen's plea. I am strengthened in that view by the fact that his Honour gave a discount of 15%, which was within the range proffered by the defence. It was in my view amply open to the sentencing judge to conclude that 15% fairly reflected a combined discount for the utilitarian value for the plea, her subjective willingness to facilitate the course of justice, and her assistance. All three were of relatively low value, as was implicitly and realistically recognised by her counsel at the time. I see no reason why it should be inferred that the combined discount actually awarded, at the bottom of the range proffered by the defence, did not include a component for the limited utilitarian value of the plea.

Ground 2 - objective criminality

The sentencing judge considered that the offence "falls well into the middle of the range of seriousness of offences of this type", towards the end of the passage reproduced at [8] above.
Mr Ramage submitted that the description was unclear. He submitted that it was not clear from the words "offences of this type" whether the sentencing judge was referring merely to the offence created by s 400.9(1) of the Code, or the suite of money laundering offences, of which the offence with which Ms Nguyen was charged was among the least serious. It was put thus: "One cannot assume he is dealing with 400.9(1) or all the gamut of offences which are described one way or another as money laundering offences. It is classically within the role of the sentencing judge to make such an assessment. However, an applicant, a person being sentenced, is entitled to know on what basis that assessment is made for offences of this type. In other words, one would expect some analysis of other offences under this section to be considered and referred to."
I see no such ambiguity. There is no reason to think that when referring to the range of seriousness of "offences of this type", the sentencing judge was referring to anything other than the offence to which Ms Nguyen had pleaded guilty and in respect of which he was in the process of imposing sentence.
Mr Ramage also submitted that no reasons were given for the assessment of objective criminality. Again I disagree. The 13 matters preceding his Honour's assessment of objective criminality, which deal with the amount of physical currency involved, which substantially exceeded the minimum amount constituting the offence, the role played by Ms Nguyen in the transaction, the travelling she took and the telephones which she operated and the planning of the offence and the fact that it was undertaken for reward, amply discharge the obligation to provide reasons.
It was submitted by Mr Ramage that the failure on the part of the sentencing judge to refer to any of the comparable cases supplied suggested that insufficient reasons had been given. That submission is rejected.
This ground is not made out. Indeed, the submissions advanced in support of it were, at best, on the borderline of what is properly arguable.

Ground 3 - manifestly excessive

What must be established under this proposed ground of appeal is that, notwithstanding the absence of specific error, the sentence is so excessive as to demonstrate in itself that the sentencing judge's discretion miscarried: Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 at [25]-[28].
Nevertheless, Mr Ramage sought to argue one matter amounting to specific error under this heading. It was contended that there was error by the sentencing judge in not considering the imposition of an intensive correction order: see EF v R [2015] NSWCCA 36. No such submission was made in the written submissions provided by counsel then appearing for Ms Nguyen. In his oral submissions, counsel concluded after summarising the objective seriousness and subjective considerations as follows: " … [W]e respectfully submit that the approach of Whitford DCJ in Man Lee where the sentence was imposed but dealt with by a recognisance release order is appropriate. ... In the alternative, and it becomes a real alternative having regard to it has now been I think some time, three years, but the offender is suitable for community service and in the circumstances of all the relevant matters and the criminality described the Court can refer the matter off for intensive correction in the circumstance of this matters".
It may be accepted that it had been put that an intensive correction order be imposed. However, on a fair reading of the sentencing judge's reasons as reproduced at [15] above, his Honour was rejecting the rolled-up submission that either a recognisance release order or an intensive correction order was appropriate. It follows that there was no failure to consider other modes by which the sentence could be served.
Turning to the proposed ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive, I cannot accept the submission that it was. When regard is had to the amount of money involved - more than seven times that which is required to make out the offence - coupled with the level of involvement of Ms Nguyen and the mixed subjective features in her case, it cannot be concluded that a term of 14 months with release after 9 months is manifestly excessive. The maximum penalty was increased from 2 to 3 years with effect from 19 March 2010, signifying a legislative appreciation of the seriousness of money laundering offences. The total sentence imposed was less than half of the maximum, while the period to be served in prison was only one quarter of the maximum.

Orders

It followed that none of the grounds of appeal is made out. Those are my reasons for participating in this Court's order on 1 March 2019.
HARRISON J: My reasons for joining in the orders of the Court pronounced on 1 March 2019 are those stated by Leeming JA.
DAVIES J: The reasons stated by Leeming JA are my reasons also for joining in the orders made by the Court on 1 March 2019.

Amendments 13 March 2019 - [15] - quotation, "minor" changed to "mirror" [32] - "doubt" changed to "think" [32] - second sentence, "to" added after "referring" [37] - "hearing" changed to "heading" DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 13 March 2019

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (9 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (2)

Cases Cited (7)

Cited By (1)