Almada v R [2015] NSWCCA 19

Almada v R [2015] NSWCCA 19

There was no error by the sentencing judge in distinguishing between the applicant's and Chan's roles, the guarded assessment of rehabilitation was open on the evidence, and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive; leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
25 February 2015
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appellate
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence allowed; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'money Laundering' 'sentencing Principles' 'objective Criminality' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'general Deterrence']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'money Laundering' 'sentencing Principles' 'objective Criminality' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'general Deterrence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appellate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the applicant's objective criminality relative to a co-offender" "Whether the assessment of the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation was erroneous" 'Whether the sentence was manifestly excessive']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no error by the sentencing judge in distinguishing between the applicant's and Chan's roles, the guarded assessment of rehabilitation was open on the evidence, and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive; leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence allowed; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal against sentence allowed.' 'Appeal dismissed.']