Subramaniam v R [2013] NSWCCA 159

Subramaniam v R [2013] NSWCCA 159

The sentencing judge erred by imposing an aggregate sentence without properly indicating the sentences that would have been imposed for each offence and without providing a rational explanation of the grouping and accumulation of offences as required by s 53A. On re-sentencing, the obtain benefit by deception offences should be grouped by the amounts transferred, the money laundering offences should be treated as highly technical and wholly concurrent with the related deception offences, and the applicant's early pleas, genuine remorse and co-operation, good prospects of rehabilitation, personality disorder and moderately reduced moral culpability justified a lower aggregate sentence and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Re Sentencing After Appeal Allowed
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Sentence imposed 10 February 2012 quashed. Applicant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['aggregate Sentence' 'obtain Benefit by Deception' 'money Laundering' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, S 53 A' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'restitution' 'mental Condition and Moral Culpability' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['aggregate Sentence' 'obtain Benefit by Deception' 'money Laundering' 'crimes (sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, S 53 A' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'restitution' 'mental Condition and Moral Culpability' 'special Circumstances']

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 Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Re Sentencing After Appeal Allowed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred in applying Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 53A by failing to specify the sentence that would have been imposed for each offence and to explain the structure of the aggregate sentence.' 'How the obtain benefit by deception offences and money laundering offences should be grouped and sentenced on re-sentencing.' "Whether the applicant's personality disorder and history of childhood sexual abuse reduced her moral culpability." "Whether the applicant's pleas of guilty, co-operation and restitution warranted mitigation." 'Whether special circumstances should be found.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge erred by imposing an aggregate sentence without properly indicating the sentences that would have been imposed for each offence and without providing a rational explanation of the grouping and accumulation of offences as required by s 53A. On re-sentencing, the obtain benefit by deception offences should be grouped by the amounts transferred, the money laundering offences should be treated as highly technical and wholly concurrent with the related deception offences, and the applicant's early pleas, genuine remorse and co-operation, good prospects of rehabilitation, personality disorder and moderately reduced moral culpability justified a lower aggregate sentence and...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Sentence imposed 10 February 2012 quashed. Applicant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['The appeal is allowed.' 'The sentence imposed on 10 February 2012 is quashed.' 'In lieu impose an aggregate non-parole period of six (6) years to date from 4 October 2009, expiring 3 October 2015, with a balance of term of five (5) years, expiring 3 October 2020.' 'The applicant would be eligible for release on 4...