Regina v Wealand [2002] NSWCCA 471

Regina v Wealand [2002] NSWCCA 471

The Court dismissed the Crown appeal because no appellable error was shown in the discretionary refusal to order forfeiture. Read fairly and as a whole, the sentencing judge did not breach s18(2) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989: he did not treat the sentence imposed on Mr Wealand as hardship, but considered the likely effect of forfeiting the unit in the context of the fragile economic circumstances of the Wealand family. The remaining grounds invited the Court to reweigh facts, but there was evidence capable of supporting the judge's view and that view was not plainly unreasonable or unjust.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 December 2002
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Refusal to Make a Forfeiture Order Under the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['forfeiture of Tainted Property' 'hardship Under Forfeiture Provisions' 'drug Trafficking Offences' 'crown Appeal' 'discretionary Appellate Review']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Practice and Procedure' 'proceeds of Crime and Confiscation'] ['forfeiture of Tainted Property' 'hardship Under Forfeiture Provisions' 'drug Trafficking Offences' 'crown Appeal' 'discretionary Appellate Review']

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

Crown Appeal Against Refusal to Make a Forfeiture Order Under the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 / Appeal to the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal From the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge breached s18(2) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989 by taking into account the sentence imposed when assessing hardship.' 'Whether the sentencing judge gave excessive weight to the impact of forfeiture on rehabilitation.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient weight to the objective facts of the offences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed adequately to consider other financial resources available to the respondent.' 'Whether error was shown in the discretionary refusal to order forfeiture of the unit.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court dismissed the Crown appeal because no appellable error was shown in the discretionary refusal to order forfeiture. Read fairly and as a whole, the sentencing judge did not breach s18(2) of the Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989: he did not treat the sentence imposed on Mr Wealand as hardship, but considered the likely effect of forfeiting the unit in the context of the fragile economic circumstances of the Wealand family. The remaining grounds invited the Court to reweigh facts, but there was evidence capable of supporting the judge's view and that view was not plainly unreasonable or unjust.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal is dismissed.']