R v FF [2023] NSWCCA 186

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: R v FF [2023] NSWCCA 186 Hearing dates: 30 June 2023 Date of orders: 26 July 2023 Decision date: 26 July 2023 Before: Beech-Jones CJ at CL at [1] Fagan J at [89] R A Hulme AJ at [90] Decision: (1) Appeal allowed; (2) Set aside the sentence imposed on the respondent in the District Court on 15 December 2022; (3) In place thereof: (a) impose an aggregate sentence of 4 years imprisonment to commence on 21 April 2023 and expire on 20 April 2027; (b) pursuant to s 44(2A) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) set a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months; (c) specify that the earliest date the respondent will be eligible to be released on parole is 20 October 2025; (d) pursuant to s 53A(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), record that an aggregate sentence is imposed and indicate to the respondent that the sentences that would have been imposed for each offence under separate sentences instead of an aggregate sentence are as follows: Sequence 10 – section 193C of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – 26 months Sequence 13 – section 193B of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – 28 months Sequence 14 – section 193B of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – 29 months Catchwords: CRIMES — appeals — Crown appeal against sentence — manifest inadequacy — proceeds of crime — syndicate involved in large-scale drug trafficking — where respondent received amounts of cash and deposited them into bank accounts he opened and controlled — total sum of proceeds of crime exceeded $8.5 million — respondent sentenced to 2 years and 6 months imprisonment to be served by way of ICO — whether sentence is manifestly inadequate — depositors were recruited to assist respondent and played a significantly lesser role — disparate undiscounted indicative sentences between respondent and HM (a depositor) — significance of disparity to Crown appeal — aggregate sentence involved a very large and unjustified degree of notional concurrency — sentence manifestly inadequate to a significant degree — whether Court should exercise its residual discretion not to intervene — offending constitutes very serious instances of large-scale money laundering — sentence imposed was an affront to administration of justice — appeal allowed — respondent resentenced Legislation Cited: Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Supreme Court (Criminal Appeal) Rules 2021 (NSW) Cases Cited: Bresnahan v R [2022] NSWCCA 288 Cahyadi v The Queen [2007] NSWCCA 1; (2007) 168 A Crim R 41 CMB v Attorney General for the State of New South Wales (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9 Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) v TH [2023] NSWCCA 81 Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 JM v R [2014] NSWCCA 297 Ke v R [2021] NSWCCA 177 Kelly v R [2017] NSWCCA 256 Lee v R [2020] NSWCCA 244 Mandranis v The Queen [2021] NSWCCA 97; (2021) 289 A Crim R 260 R v Doff [2005] NSWCCA 119; (2005) 54 ACSR 200 R v Gu [2006] NSWCCA 104 R v Hernando [2002] NSWCCA 489; (2002) 136 A Crim R 451 R v Lembke [2020] NSWCCA 293 R v Weismantel [2016] NSWCCA 204 R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17 Stanley v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2023] HCA 3; (2023) 97 ALJR 107 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rex (Appellant) FF (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: Ms S Lind (Appellant) Mr A Chhabra; Mr J Fennel (Respondent)