The offender was sentenced following pleas of guilty to 17 counts of uttering counterfeit money contrary to s 7(1) of the Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 (Cth), 21 counts of producing a false passport to a designated reporting agency contrary to s 137(1) of the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006 (Cth) and 1 count of possession of counterfeit money contrary to s 9 of the Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 (Cth). The original sentence imposed 10 years and 6 months imprisonment with a 7 year non-parole period. Additional offences were taken into account under s 16BA. The offender appealed on the basis that the sentencing judge failed to take into account the utilitarian value of the offender’s plea.
Guilty Plea: Sentence was handed down prior to decision in Xiao. There was no implicit recognition by the sentencing judge of the utilitarian value of the offender’s guilty pleas. It is apparent from the number of charges on the indictment and the s 16BA Schedule that had the offender defended the matters, the trial would have proceeded for some weeks and involved a level of complexity. This bears upon the utilitarian value of their guilty pleas. A 25% discount should be extended to the offender for the utilitarian value of their guilty pleas. The sentencing judge took into account aspects of the offender’s guilty pleas in an unquantified way and in the offender’s favour on sentence. It is necessary for the Court not to double count factors in the offender’s favour on sentence.
Rehabilitation: Sentencing judge considered offender’s prospects of rehabilitation were poor. Offender has demonstrated established history of dishonest conduct so that there remains risk of reoffending once released into the community. Offender’s good behaviour in prison may be an unhelpful indicator concerning prospects of rehabilitation. Offender has demonstrated a propensity for criminal deception of others and is a recidivist fraudster. It does not appear that there are criminogenic factors in offender’s background which they have in some way brought under control in custody.
Leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal allowed and sentence quashed. Offender sentenced to 9 years and 6 months imprisonment with a 6 year and 4 month non-parole period.
Guilty Plea: Sentence was handed down prior to decision in Xiao. There was no implicit recognition by the sentencing judge of the utilitarian value of the offender’s guilty pleas. It is apparent from the number of charges on the indictment and the s 16BA Schedule that had the offender defended the matters, the trial would have proceeded for some weeks and involved a level of complexity. This bears upon the utilitarian value of their guilty pleas. A 25% discount should be extended to the offender for the utilitarian value of their guilty pleas. The sentencing judge took into account aspects of the offender’s guilty pleas in an unquantified way and in the offender’s favour on sentence. It is necessary for the Court not to double count factors in the offender’s favour on sentence.
Rehabilitation: Sentencing judge considered offender’s prospects of rehabilitation were poor. Offender has demonstrated established history of dishonest conduct so that there remains risk of reoffending once released into the community. Offender’s good behaviour in prison may be an unhelpful indicator concerning prospects of rehabilitation. Offender has demonstrated a propensity for criminal deception of others and is a recidivist fraudster. It does not appear that there are criminogenic factors in offender’s background which they have in some way brought under control in custody.
Leave to appeal against sentence granted. Appeal allowed and sentence quashed. Offender sentenced to 9 years and 6 months imprisonment with a 6 year and 4 month non-parole period.
