Delaney v R; R v Delaney [2013] NSWCCA 150

Delaney v R; R v Delaney [2013] NSWCCA 150

The conviction appeal failed because, viewed in the context of the 3 May demand and threats, the communications and conduct on 4 May and 13 May conveyed continuing demands for the $200 payments accompanied by the previously communicated menaces, so express fresh threats were unnecessary. Count 3 was not an abuse of process because the s99(2) and s193B(2) offences had different elements and neither was wholly included in the other. The Crown sentence appeal failed because the sentencing judge took the relevant objective and subjective matters into account, was entitled to backdate the sentences and order concurrency given the strong overlap and course-of-conduct character of the offending,...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 June 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Conviction Appeal and Crown Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal From Conviction and Sentence After Judge Alone Trial Before Charteris SC DCJ
Outcome
Appellant's appeal against conviction dismissed. Crown's appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['demanding Money With Menaces' 'money Laundering' 'abuse of Process' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'crown Sentence Appeal' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'parity Principle' 'totality' 'general Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['demanding Money With Menaces' 'money Laundering' 'abuse of Process' 'joint Criminal Enterprise' 'crown Sentence Appeal' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'parity Principle' 'totality' '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 Conviction Appeal and Crown Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal; Appeal From Conviction and Sentence After Judge Alone Trial Before Charteris SC DCJ

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the verdicts on counts 2 and 4 for demanding money with menaces were unreasonable or unsupported because no fresh express demand or menace was made on those dates.' 'Whether inclusion of count 3 for dealing with proceeds of crime was an abuse of process because it substantially overlapped with count 2.' "Whether the sentencing judge erred by failing to determine objective criminality, by dating sentences from 1 September 2012, by failing to accumulate sentences, by considering parity, by failing to account for the offender's role and aggravating features, by giving too much weight to subjective circumstances, by failing to acknowledge general deterrence, or by imposing sentences that were manifestly inadequate."]

Ratio Decidendi

The conviction appeal failed because, viewed in the context of the 3 May demand and threats, the communications and conduct on 4 May and 13 May conveyed continuing demands for the $200 payments accompanied by the previously communicated menaces, so express fresh threats were unnecessary. Count 3 was not an abuse of process because the s99(2) and s193B(2) offences had different elements and neither was wholly included in the other. The Crown sentence appeal failed because the sentencing judge took the relevant objective and subjective matters into account, was entitled to backdate the sentences and order concurrency given the strong overlap and course-of-conduct character of the offending,...

Court Disposition

Appellant's appeal against conviction dismissed. Crown's appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Dismiss the appellant's appeal against conviction." "Dismiss the Crown's appeal against sentence."]