R v CONNELL [2013] NSWCCA 155

R v CONNELL [2013] NSWCCA 155

The Crown did not establish error or manifest inadequacy. The demand and proceeds offences substantially overlapped, so it was not erroneous for the proceeds sentences to be wholly concurrent with the demand offences; the sentencing judge took account of aggravation, the respondent's role, general deterrence, bail conditions and special circumstances; and although the aggregate sentence could be viewed as lenient, it remained within the appropriate range given that the respondent joined after the initial threats, did not personally utter threats or menaces, and the offences involved considerable overlap.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Crown Sentence Appeal / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed by Charteris DCJ in the Sydney District Court
Outcome
Crown appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['demand Money With Menaces With Intent' 'knowingly Deal With the Proceeds of Crime' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'crown Sentence Appeal' 'overlap Between Offences' 'general Deterrence' 'parity Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'bail Conditions']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['demand Money With Menaces With Intent' 'knowingly Deal With the Proceeds of Crime' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'manifest Inadequacy' 'crown Sentence Appeal' 'overlap Between Offences' 'general Deterrence' 'parity Principle' 'special Circumstances' 'bail Conditions']

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 Sentence Appeal / Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed by Charteris DCJ in the Sydney District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing an aggregate sentence under s53A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 without adequately assessing the criminality of each offence or explaining the overall sentence.' 'Whether it was erroneous to impose identical and wholly concurrent penalties for the money-laundering offences and the demand money with menaces offences.' "Whether the sentencing judge failed to take account of aggravating features, the respondent's role, parity, general deterrence, bail conditions, or the proper adjustment for special circumstances." 'Whether the individual indicative sentences and aggregate sentence were manifestly inadequate.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Crown did not establish error or manifest inadequacy. The demand and proceeds offences substantially overlapped, so it was not erroneous for the proceeds sentences to be wholly concurrent with the demand offences; the sentencing judge took account of aggravation, the respondent's role, general deterrence, bail conditions and special circumstances; and although the aggregate sentence could be viewed as lenient, it remained within the appropriate range given that the respondent joined after the initial threats, did not personally utter threats or menaces, and the offences involved considerable overlap.

Court Disposition

Crown appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The Crown appeal is dismissed.']