sentence — joint commission of one count of dealing with money intending that it would become an instrument of crime offence contrary to ss 11.2A(1) and 400.3(1) of the Commonwealth Criminal Code — offenders involved in money laundering operation with additional co-offenders — offence relates to over $17 million — guilty plea — s 16A(2)(g) — contrition — s 16A(2)(f) — although not pleas at first opportunity, very significant utilitarian value having regard to nature of allegations and estimated length of trials — 20% discount for utilitarian value— while Crown case strong, pleas of guilty also reflect willingness to facilitate course of justice and contrition — nature and circumstances of the offence — s 16A(2)(a) — generally speaking, large number of transaction involving small amounts of money will be more serious than single transaction of large quantity which may be seen as isolated offence — ongoing money laundering business, not an isolated incident — system used not particularly sophisticated and methods utilised to avoid detection somewhat simplistic and amateurish — overall objective gravity falls middle of range of seriousness — offenders occupied lower role in overall enterprise — Co-offender 2 subservient role, followed directions and entirely dispensable — their role least serious of 6 offenders charged and their role falls at lower end of range of seriousness — although motivation to obtain financial benefit, the extent to which this operates as an aggravating factor is significantly moderated having regard to Co-offender 2’s financial circumstances at the relevant time — Co-offender 3’s role slightly more serious than Co-offender 1 as Co-offender 3 gave directions to Co-offender 2 and had some authority to deal with unforeseen circumstances — both Co-offender 1 and 3 motivated by financial reward, neither in type of financial hardship suffered by Co-offender 2, so motivated by financial reward factor adverse to them — Co-offender 1 and 3’s objective seriousness at middle level — antecedents — s 16A(2)(m) — Co-offender 2 came into enterprise following history of abuse, deprivation, isolation and poverty — offender struggling financially and introduced to operation initially not appreciating it was an illegal enterprise — general deterrence — s 16A(2)(ja) — general deterrence, denunciation and punishment are relevant and important considerations — money laundering difficult to detect, investigate and prosecute and incumbent upon courts to impose sentences that deter others from engaging in this type of serious criminal activity — specific deterrence — s 16A(2)(j) — while each offender willingly engaged in sustained criminal activity, weight given moderated having regard to each offender’s prior good character, compliance with bail and not re-offended — at time Co-offender 3 committed present offences, had no prior criminal history— mental condition — s 16A(2)(m) — no direct nexus between Co-offender 3’s mental health issues and offending conduct to reduce moral culpability — Co-offender 3’s mental health issues taken into account in assessing weight given to subjective case and insofar as relevant to conditions under which they will serve term of imprisonment — Co-offender 1’s panic disorder, severe depression, anxiety and concern for son’s health taken into account as time in custody more onerous — rehabilitation — s 16A(2)(n) — Co-offender 3 has good prospects of rehabilitation, committed to their young family and unlikely to engage in criminal activity which would risk further removal from their family in the future — Co-offender 1 good prospects of rehabilitation and unlikely to reoffend — Co-offender 2 has excellent prospects of rehabilitation and is unlikely to reoffend — co-operation — s 16A(2)(h) — Co-offender 3’s type of co-operation with authorities by surrendering items should be recognised in determining sentence as facilitates and promotes cooperation by others — although no person arrested, charged or prosecuted, surrender of items removed from community — assistance warrants 10% reduction — offender’s family and dependants — s 16A(2)(p) — no suitable placement found for Co-offender 2’s child among family or friends — in light of unsettled state of law, in order to substantially modify otherwise appropriate penalty, sentencing judge must be satisfied hardship to offender’s son by reason of offender’s incarceration is exceptional — unique circumstances giving rise to utterly close bond between mother and child forged in difficult circumstances of abusive relationship, estrangement from family, living together in basic accommodation — sentencing judge satisfied gaoling Co-offender 2 and separating them for their son will cause significant emotion and psychological hardship to them and exceptional hardship to their son, who may well be placed in out-of-home care — sentence — Co-offender 1 sentenced to 3 years’ 4 months imprisonment with a 1 year 6 month non-parole period — Co-offender 2 sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment to be served by way of Intensive Correction Order — Co-offender 3 sentenced to 3 years’ and 7 months imprisonment with a 1 year 9 month non-parole period
