Wills v R [2014] NSWCCA 253

Wills v R [2014] NSWCCA 253

There was no procedural unfairness in refusing a second adjournment because the Applicant had participated by addressing the Court and filing detailed written submissions, did not seek an adjournment to obtain legal representation, did not show relevant incapacity, and provided no further medical evidence despite having been told what would be required for any further adjournment. The sentence was not manifestly excessive because the offending involved repeated deliberate corruption and money laundering by a senior executive in breach of trust, large sums, planning, concealment and an extended period of offending; the Sentencing Judge's error as to the maximum penalty for money laundering...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['conspiracy to Money Launder' 'money Laundering' 'receiving Corrupt Benefits' 'procedural Fairness' 'adjournment of Sentencing Proceedings' 'manifest Excess']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Procedure'] ['conspiracy to Money Launder' 'money Laundering' 'receiving Corrupt Benefits' 'procedural Fairness' 'adjournment of Sentencing Proceedings' 'manifest Excess']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Sentencing Judge failed to afford procedural fairness by refusing a second adjournment of the sentencing proceedings when the Applicant was unrepresented and had serious health issues.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence of seven years with a non-parole period of four years was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was no procedural unfairness in refusing a second adjournment because the Applicant had participated by addressing the Court and filing detailed written submissions, did not seek an adjournment to obtain legal representation, did not show relevant incapacity, and provided no further medical evidence despite having been told what would be required for any further adjournment. The sentence was not manifestly excessive because the offending involved repeated deliberate corruption and money laundering by a senior executive in breach of trust, large sums, planning, concealment and an extended period of offending; the Sentencing Judge's error as to the maximum penalty for money laundering...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']