Garcia v R [2022] NSWCCA 172

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Garcia v R [2022] NSWCCA 172 Hearing dates: 14 March 2022 Date of orders: 12 October 2022 Decision date: 12 October 2022 Before: Macfarlan JA at [1]; Walton J at [2]; Rothman J at [147] Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal. (2) Allow the appeal with respect to Grounds 2, 3 and 5. (3) Quash the sentence imposed on the applicant in the District Court on 18 September 2020 and in lieu therefore, sentence the applicant to terms of imprisonment as follows: (a) For the Offence in contravention of s 400.9(1) of the Criminal Code, a term of imprisonment of 7 months commencing 18 May 2015. (b) For the Offence in contravention of s 302.3(1) of the Criminal Code, a term of imprisonment of 7 years 6 months commencing 18 July 2015. (c) For the Offence in contravention of s 400.3(2), a term of imprisonment of 8 years commencing 18 February 2016. (d) The single non-parole period for the Commonwealth Offences in orders (a), (b) and (c) of 5 years 10 months commencing 18 May 2015 and expiring 17 March 2021. (e) An aggregate sentence of 12 years imprisonment to commence on 18 February 2018 and expiring on 17 February 2030 for the First State Supply Offence and the Second State Supply offence. The aggregate non-parole period for those offences is 7 years 6 months imprisonment to commence on 18 February 2018 and expiring on 17 August 2025. (f) The indicative sentence for the First State Supply Offence is 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years 3 months. The indicative sentence for the Second State Supply Offence is 10 years with a non-parole period of 6 years 6 months. (g) An overall sentence to be imposed is 14 years and 9 months with a non-parole period of 10 years and 3 months commencing on 18 May 2015. The earliest release date will be 17 August 2025. The sentence will expire on 17 February 2030. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – application for leave to appeal against sentence – whether the sentencing judge erred in identifying the elements of the offence – Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) s 400.3 – whether sentencing judge erred in making a finding of guilt under s 400.3(2)(b)(i) – De Simoni principle - whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the discount to be afforded for the value of guilty plea – whether the sentence for the Money Laundering Offence was manifestly excessive – whether error in overall effective non-parole period – parity – leave to appeal granted - appeal allowed – re-sentence Legislation Cited: Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth), s 142 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 53A Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 35 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 9, 19AB, 19AJ, 20, 35 Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), ss 5.4, 302.3(1), s 400.3(2) Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), s 25 Cases Cited: Baden v R [2020] NSWCCA 23 Bae v R [2020] NSWCCA 35 Burrows v R [2017] NSWCCA 45 Dunn v R [2018] NSWCCA 108 El Masri v R [2022] NSWCCA 27 Fenech v R [2018] NSWCCA 160 Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Ilic v R (2020) 103 NSWLR 430; [2020] NSWCCA 300 Kaurasi v R [2020] NSWCCA 253 Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 Lehn v R (2016) 93 NSWLR 205; [2016] NSWCCA 255 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46 Majeed v R [2013] VSCA 40 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 McCullough v R [2009] NSWCCA 94; (2009) 194 A Crim R 439 Newman (a pseudonym) v R [2019] NSWCCA 157 Nguyen v R [2012] NSWCCA 152 Nguyen v R [2015] NSWCCA 209 Nykolyn v R [2021] NSWCCA 312 Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221 Paredes v R [2012] NSWCCA 4 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26 R v Borkowski (2019) 195 A Crim R 1; [2009] NSWCCA 102 R v Cramp [2004] NSWCCA 264 R v De Leew [2015] NSWCCA 183 R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117 R v Donald [2013] NSWCCA 238 R v Glynatsis (2013) 230 A Crim R 99; [2013] NSWCCA 131 R v Huang, R v Siu [2017] NSWCCA 259 R v Viana [2008] NSWCCA 88 Sheu v R [2018] NSWCCA 86 R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383; [1981] HCA 31 Vale v R (2016) 77 MVR 194; [2016] NSWCCA 154 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Jose Maria Garcia (also known as Pepe Garcia) (Applicant) The King (Commonwealth) (First Respondent) The King (NSW) (Second Respondent) Commissioner of Police, NSW Police Force (Third Respondent) Representation: Counsel: L Brasch with M Voleynik (Applicant) J McGuire with B Anniwell (First Respondent) M Gleeson (Second Respondent) L Chapman (Third Respondent)