Citation: R v Cranney [2017] NSWDC 389
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 11 December 2017
Judge: Berman SC DCJ
Background
The offender was charged with dealing in the proceeds of crime under s 400.5(2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The offence involved the offender receiving $85,000 in cash from his brother, a Sydney Airport Customs officer who had been paid for facilitating the large-scale importation of pseudoephedrine into Australia. The offender met his brother at a service station late at night and took custody of the money within approximately an hour of it being handed to his brother.
The offender's brother was separately convicted and received a non-parole period of eight and a half years for his role in the importation scheme. The offender himself had no prior criminal history, and character references were tendered on his behalf at sentence. His counsel submitted that the family relationship made it significantly harder to refuse the request for involvement.
The offender pleaded guilty, but only after the matter had been listed for trial on five occasions, with two adjournments granted on his application. The Crown's case was described by the court as strong.
Legal Issues
- What sentence was appropriate for an offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime under s 400.5(2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code, where the value of the money was $85,000?
- What discount, if any, was warranted for a late guilty plea in Commonwealth proceedings?
- Whether full-time imprisonment was required, given the Crown's concession that other sentencing options were available.
Decision
The court found the offender's degree of recklessness was high. The circumstances of the transaction, including the coded communication, the late-night meeting at a service station, and the absence of any plausible legitimate source for such a sum of cash, meant the offender's awareness that the money was proceeds of crime approached certainty. The court characterised his role as willingly providing a safe haven for the funds.
The late guilty plea attracted only a minimal discount. The court observed that the offender had always known what he had done and that the plea came only after years of delay, including two adjournments he had sought. The court treated his willingness to facilitate the course of justice as minimal, consistent with the approach applicable to Commonwealth offences.
On the question of full-time custody, the court was candid that, absent the Crown's concession, it would have imposed an immediate custodial sentence. However, the Crown acknowledged that full-time imprisonment was not the only available option, pointing to comparable sentencing outcomes in Queensland and Victoria. The court accepted this concession, while expressly noting those two cases did not establish any range for the offence.
The court imposed a sentence of 18 months imprisonment but released the offender forthwith on a recognisance, effectively placing him on a good behaviour bond for three years. The court emphasised how close the offender had come to full-time imprisonment and warned that any breach of the bond would likely result in incarceration.
Orders Made
- Sentenced to 18 months imprisonment.
- Released forthwith upon entering into a recognisance of $5,000 to be of good behaviour for three years.
Key Takeaways
- A conviction under s 400.5(2) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code for dealing in proceeds of crime (value $50,000 or more) carries a maximum penalty of seven years imprisonment, and the sentencing court here regarded full-time custody as prima facie appropriate on the facts.
- Where the Crown concedes that full-time custody is not the only sentencing option, a court will rarely depart from that position, though the District Court here was explicit that it would have reached a different conclusion independently.
- A guilty plea attracts only a minimal discount where the defendant delayed for years, sought multiple adjournments, and ultimately pleaded only when the Crown case was overwhelming.
- Family pressure was accepted as a contextual explanation for the offender's involvement but did not significantly reduce the seriousness of the offending or the sentence imposed.
- The existence of comparable non-custodial outcomes in other jurisdictions does not, of itself, establish a sentencing range; the court here declined to treat two interstate cases as defining the permissible range for this offence.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Commonwealth Criminal Code, s 400.5(2) (dealing with proceeds of crime, recklessness, value $50,000 or more)
Cases:
No specific cases were cited by name in the judgment. The court referred generally to two unnamed sentencing decisions, one from Queensland and one from Victoria, involving the same offence.