Kerr v R [2014] NSWCCA 235

Kerr v R [2014] NSWCCA 235

The aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive, unreasonable or plainly unjust because the deal with proceeds of crime offences, while overlapping in part with underlying frauds, displayed sufficient independent criminality to justify a separate penalty. The sentencing judge's structure, which subsumed sentences for obtain financial advantage by deception within the use false instrument offences and added 12 months for the proceeds of crime offences, did not result in improper double punishment. A stern but permissible approach was taken, given the applicant's planned and ongoing criminal activity, lack of remorse, and the significant financial loss caused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['appeal Against Sentence' 'deal With Proceeds of Crime' 'obtain Financial Advantage by Deception' 'use False Instrument' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence']
['criminal Law'] ['appeal Against Sentence' 'deal With Proceeds of Crime' 'obtain Financial Advantage by Deception' 'use False Instrument' 'aggregate Sentencing' 'manifestly Excessive Sentence']

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 / Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the aggregate sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, unreasonable, or plainly unjust' 'Whether the sentence reflected double punishment for overlapping criminality' 'Proper assessment of discrete criminality in offences of deal with proceeds of crime, obtain financial advantage by deception, and use false instrument']

Ratio Decidendi

The aggregate sentence was not manifestly excessive, unreasonable or plainly unjust because the deal with proceeds of crime offences, while overlapping in part with underlying frauds, displayed sufficient independent criminality to justify a separate penalty. The sentencing judge's structure, which subsumed sentences for obtain financial advantage by deception within the use false instrument offences and added 12 months for the proceeds of crime offences, did not result in improper double punishment. A stern but permissible approach was taken, given the applicant's planned and ongoing criminal activity, lack of remorse, and the significant financial loss caused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

Orders

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