R v Glyn Morgan JONES; R v Anthony Joseph Luis HILI [2010] NSWCCA 108

R v Glyn Morgan JONES; R v Anthony Joseph Luis HILI [2010] NSWCCA 108

The original sentences were manifestly inadequate due to excessive reduction for plea and assistance and insufficient mandatory imprisonment period; a more appropriate sentence must be imposed consistent with established sentencing principles and ratios for Commonwealth revenue offences.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Regina; Respondent: Glyn Morgan Jones; Respondent: Anthony Joseph Luis Hili
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
14 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Judgment After Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed (for Hili), allowed in part and otherwise dismissed (for Jones); sentences set aside and new sentences imposed
Legal Topics
Crown Appeal, Sentencing, Tax Fraud, Discount for Plea of Guilty and Assistance, Non Parole Period, Manifest Inadequacy, Recognizance Release Order
Criminal Law Crown Appeal Sentencing Tax Fraud Discount for Plea of Guilty and Assistance Non Parole Period Manifest Inadequacy Recognizance Release Order

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Applicant

Glyn Morgan Jones

Respondent

Anthony Joseph Luis Hili

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Crown Appeal Against Sentence / Judgment After Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed in the District Court were manifestly inadequate
  2. 2 Appropriate discounts for plea of guilty and assistance to authorities
  3. 3 Calculation and ratio of non-parole period to head sentence in Commonwealth revenue offences

Ratio Decidendi

The original sentences were manifestly inadequate due to excessive reduction for plea and assistance and insufficient mandatory imprisonment period; a more appropriate sentence must be imposed consistent with established sentencing principles and ratios for Commonwealth revenue offences.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed (for Hili), allowed in part and otherwise dismissed (for Jones); sentences set aside and new sentences imposed

Orders

  • In relation to Hili: sentence of 3 years imprisonment commencing 13 November 2009; release after 18 months upon entering into a recognizance release order pursuant to s 20(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), self surety $1,000, to be of good behaviour for the balance of the sentence and to appear to receive sentence if...
  • In relation to Jones: sentence of 12 months imprisonment for contravention of s 29D commencing 13 November 2009; sentence of 2 years and 6 months imprisonment for contravention of s 134.2(1) commencing 13 May 2010; released after 18 months on 13 May 2011 upon entering recognizance release order pursuant to s...