Musgrove v R [2019] NSWCCA 245

Musgrove v R [2019] NSWCCA 245

Leave to appeal was refused because the aggregate sentence of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months was well within the range open to the sentencing judge for serious proceeds of crime and criminal group offences. The Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the substantial concurrency, the seriousness of the applicant's deliberate role in a drug and money laundering operation, the significant sums involved, and the sentencing judge's full and appropriate consideration of the applicant's subjective circumstances and rehabilitation prospects.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave to Appeal From a District Court Sentence
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'aggregate Sentence' 'dealing With Proceeds of Crime' 'knowing Participation in a Criminal Group' 'money Laundering' 'drug Supply Networks' 'concurrency' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['manifestly Excessive Sentence' 'aggregate Sentence' 'dealing With Proceeds of Crime' 'knowing Participation in a Criminal Group' 'money Laundering' 'drug Supply Networks' 'concurrency' '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 Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave to Appeal From a District Court Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the aggregate sentence imposed for two counts of knowingly dealing with proceeds of crime and one count of knowingly participating in a criminal group was manifestly excessive.' "Whether the sentencing judge gave appropriate weight to objective seriousness, concurrency, and the applicant's subjective circumstances."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the aggregate sentence of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 2 years and 9 months was well within the range open to the sentencing judge for serious proceeds of crime and criminal group offences. The Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the substantial concurrency, the seriousness of the applicant's deliberate role in a drug and money laundering operation, the significant sums involved, and the sentencing judge's full and appropriate consideration of the applicant's subjective circumstances and rehabilitation prospects.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal refused']