DPP v Al Mofathel - ACT Supreme Court

View as PDF (212.7 KB)
View as Word document (57.2 KB)

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	DPP v Al‑Mofathel
Citation:	[2024] ACTSC 117
Hearing Date:	12 April 2024
Decision Date:	22 April 2024
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [61]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – charges of money laundering, procure perjury, make false evidence, general dishonesty, traffic a trafficable quantity of cannabis, contravene s 3LA order – offending involved two co‑offenders – agreement to launder money, agreement to lie and make false evidence in Magistrates Court proceedings, trafficking cannabis, and refusal of direction to unlock mobile telephone during police search – co‑offenders already sentenced – substantial criminal history – rehabilitation must remain significant consideration – sentence of seven years and four months' imprisonment imposed with non-parole period of four years and five months
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (ACT), s 114B Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 3LA, 19AC Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 35 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 45, 45A, 333(7), 603(5), 703(1), 705(1)
Cases Cited:	Director of Public Prosecutions v Leung [2023] ACTSC 15 DPP v Doughty [2023] ACTSC 397 DPP v Mussillon [2023] ACTSC 75 DPP v Torbert [2023] ACTSC 332 DPP v Vincent (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 379 R v White [2022] ACTSC 178
Parties:	Director of Public Prosecutions Mohammed Al‑Mofathel ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel T Hickey ( DPP) S Baker‑Goldsmith ( Offender)
	Solicitors Director of Public Prosecutions Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 209 of 2022

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․ These are sentencing proceedings in relation to offences committed by Mr Mohammed Al‑Mofathel. The offences for which he is to be sentenced are as follows:

(a) Money laundering, contrary to s 114B of the Crimes Act 1900 (ACT) (SCCAN 201/2022). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment or 1000 penalty units or both.

(b) Procure perjury, contrary to s 703(1) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) by virtue of s 45 of the Criminal Code (CAN 202/2021). The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment or 700 penalty units or both.

(c) Make false evidence, contrary to s 705(1) of the Criminal Code by virtue of s 45A of the Criminal Code (SCCAN 204/2022). The maximum penalty is seven years’ imprisonment or 700 penalty units or both.

(d) General dishonesty, contrary to s 333(7) of the Criminal Code by virtue of s 45 of the Criminal Code (CAN 8456/2021). The maximum penalty is five years’ imprisonment or 500 penalty units or both.

(e) Trafficking a trafficable quantity of cannabis, contrary to s 603(5) of the Criminal Code (CAN 8459/2021). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment or 1000 penalty units or both.

(f) Contravene a s 3LA order, contrary to s 3LA(6) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (CAN 8460/2021). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment or 600 penalty units or both.

2․ The offending involved two co‑offenders, Mr Wing Leung and Mr James Mussillon.

Agreed Facts

3․ The facts upon which the offender is to be sentenced have been agreed between the parties and are set out in a Statement of Facts, which was admitted into evidence. The Statement of Facts is a sprawling document, recording a wide range of evidence gathered by police which went beyond what was necessary in order to address the specific offences charged. Some of this evidence was useful for putting the offending conduct into its proper context. However, much of the document, whilst evidencing suspicious conduct involving many millions of dollars, was not immediately relevant to the offending conduct. The facts immediately relevant to the charged offences are summarised as follows.

Count 1 – Money laundering

4․ Mr Mussillon was a chef and restauranteur. He had been so for over 20 years. He operated the Water’s Edge Restaurant in Parkes and the Courgette Restaurant in the Canberra central business district.

5․ In around 2015, he formed a friendship with Mr Al‑Mofathel. Mr Al‑Mofathel was involved in cannabis trafficking. Mr Mussillon and Mr Al‑Mofathel established a method of laundering money derived by Mr Al‑Mofathel from his criminal activities. This involved Mr Al‑Mofathel paying money to Mr Mussillon, and Mr Mussillon then repaying that money to Mr Al‑Mofathel under the pretence that it was a payment of wages. The charge of money laundering relates to conduct between 17 March 2016 and 21 August 2021. It is not clear why the end date is stated as 21 August, given the offender’s arrest was on 12 August. It may be a typographical error. The relevant amounts of money laundered as wages were as follows:

(a) Between 19 March 2016 and 17 February 2017, Mr Mussillon transferred weekly amounts of $3000 to Mr Al-Mofathel’s bank account. Each transfer was labelled “boss pay” and the total amount was $147,000.

(b) Between 19 May 2017 and 23 November 2017, Mr Mussillon transferred weekly amounts of $3000 to Mr Al-Mofathel’s bank account. Each of these transfers was labelled “courgette pay” and the total amount was $81,000.

(c) Between 4 December 2017 and 5 January 2018, Mr Mussillon transferred a further $9000 to Mr Al-Mofathel’s bank account.

(d) Between 21 April 2020 and 3 August 2021, Mr Mussillon transferred $113,228 labelled “Courgette Pay” to Mr Al-Mofathel’s bank account.

6․ These amounts totalled $350,228.

7․ There is a further amount that forms part of this charge. This is an amount of between $170,000 and $175,000. On 27 January 2021, several police went in unmarked vehicles to locations near Mr Al-Mofathel’s father’s house. Mr Al‑Mofathel called Mr Mussillon and asked him to pick up some money that was left in a car belonging to “Ali” which was at the front of Mr Al-Mofathel’s father’s house. Mr Al-Mofathel was concerned that the police would “grab that money”. Mr Mussillon offered to collect the money and, after collecting the keys from Mr Al-Mofathel and Ali at some local shops, Mr Mussillon collected the money and put it in a safe overnight.

Count 2 – Procure perjury

8․ The charge is one of procuring perjury. Section 45 of the Criminal Code provides that a person is taken to have committed an offence if the person procures the commission of the offence by someone else.

9․ The perjury was committed by Mr Mussillon because he made a sworn statement in legal proceedings, the statement was false, and he was reckless about whether the statement was false.

10․ On 10 June 2020, Mr Al-Mofathel appeared in the Magistrates Court for a bail application. He was represented by a solicitor, Paul Edmonds. Mr Mussillon was called as a witness and provided sworn evidence. He made the following statements:

(a) he had paid for and was the sole owner of a Lamborghini;

(b) sometimes he let Mr Al-Mofathel use the Lamborghini;

(d) he had known Mr Al-Mofathel for seven years and employed him for six‑and‑a‑half years;

(e) he was Mr Al‑Mofathel’s boss;

(f) Mr Al‑Mofathel was the Operation Manager at Courgette Restaurant;

(g) Mr Al‑Mofathel worked split shifts for five days a week and worked between 40‑50 hours a week;

(h) Mr Al‑Mofathel’s duties involved serving, bringing in product and “day-to-day running”;

(i) Mr Al‑Mofathel did not take sick days; and

(j) Mr Al‑Mofathel put some money into the business, but it hds been returned to him.

11․ The bail application was adjourned to 12 June 2020. On that date, the magistrate granted Mr Al-Mofathel bail on strict conditions.

12․ It was agreed between the parties that the statements at (c) to (j) were false. There was a contest as to whether (a) and (b) were false, which must be resolved by reference to the Agreed Statement of Facts.

13․ I am satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the statements at (a) and (b) were false. That arises from the following matters in the Agreed Statement of Facts:

(a) [33]-[34]: In 2017, Mr Al-Mofathel considered purchasing a $400,000 Lamborghini, a different vehicle to the one he ultimately bought, upon which he said he had paid a $50,000 deposit. Mr Mussillon counselled Mr Al-Mofathel to put the Lamborghini in Mr Mussillon’s name. Ultimately, the purchase did not proceed.

(b) [36]-[38]: Later in 2017, a different Lamborghini was advertised for sale for $248,888. Messages between Mr Al-Mofathel and Mr Mussillon indicated that Mr Al-Mofathel was attempting to obtain a loan but his company, Mohammed’s Empire 1993 Pty Ltd, was in liquidation. After being unable to obtain the loan, Mr Al-Mofathel referred Mr Mussillon to the relevant person at the car dealership. Mr Al-Mofathel directed Mr Mussillon to sign documents relating to the purchase and to write an email authorising Mr Al-Mofathel to physically collect the vehicle. Mr Al-Mofathel provided $11,500 to the car dealership. The purchase was ultimately made by J Mussillon Pty Ltd. The ultimate purchase price was $152,500, of which $130,000 was provided by a finance company. Mr Al‑Mofathel physically collected the Lamborghini. The car dealership purchased his Mercedes Benz from him. Monthly payments on the Lamborghini’s finance were made by J Mussillon Pty Ltd.

(i) multiple instances of Mr Mussillon referring to Mr Al-Mofathel as the owner of the Lamborghini;

(ii) Mr Al-Mofathel transferring funds to Mr Mussillon to pay the insurance for the Lamborghini;

(iii) Mr Al-Mofathel directing Mr Mussillon to arrange for the repair of the Lamborghini after an accident, or for the value of the vehicle to be paid out by the insurance company;

(iv) Mr Al-Mofathel becoming frustrated with Mr Mussillon’s efforts to sort out the repair of the Lamborghini;

(v) Mr Mussillon making reference to having advised Mr Al-Mofathel not to buy the Lamborghini; and

(vi) after the Lamborghini was repaired and returned to Mr Al‑Mofathel, he discussed selling the vehicle, considering it “dead money” that he could have tripled if not for the vehicle purchase.

(d) [148]: On 11 February 2021, in an intercepted phone call, Mr Al-Mofathel said, “I’m going to sell the Lambo, yeah. You know what I’m going to sell the Lambo. I am here looking at a Jaguar, yeah.”

14․ This collection of facts, in aggregate, excludes the reasonable possibility that the vehicle was actually owned by Mr Mussillon in a way that would make both of the statements at (a) and (b) true. Rather, the legal arrangement as to ownership disguised the true owner that was Mr Al-Mofathel.

Count 3 – Make false evidence

15․ Section 705(1) of the Criminal Code prohibits the making of false evidence with the intention of influencing the outcome of a legal proceeding. Count 3 alleges that Mr Al-Mofathel committed this offence by joint commission under s 45A of the Criminal Code. It involved the preparation of a purported loan document by Mr Mussillon.

16․ On the evening of 3 March 2021, police, who had been conducting surveillance of the restaurant run by Mr Leung in Dickson, executed a search warrant on his home. They found $153,600 of Australian currency in vacuum sealed bags in a black backpack in a wardrobe. Subsequent forensic examination found Mr Al‑Mofathel’s fingerprint on one of the bags that contained the money.

17․ The next day, Mr Al-Mofathel called Mr Mussillon and asked to have a chat. He said it was quite important. They met at a car wash where Mr Al-Mofathel told Mr Mussillon to work with Mr Leung to write out a loan document to support a story that Mr Mussillon had loaned Mr Leung the money. After that, Mr Al-Mofathel had no role in the creation of the document. Both Mr Leung and Mr Mussillon subsequently had conversations with police which attempted to advance the story that Mr Mussillon had lent the money to Mr Leung. The details of the interactions are set out in the Statement of Facts. In short, police did not believe what they were being told.

18․ On the morning of 5 March 2021, police spoke to Mr Mussillon at his home and asked to see the loan document that Mr Mussillon had referred to in his interview the previous day. Mr Mussillon called Mr Al-Mofathel and told him that the police had been to his house and he needed to get the loan document to them. Mr Al-Mofathel said that he would come and see him. There were subsequent conversations between Mr Al-Mofathel and Mr Mussillon. At about 11:30am, police met Mr Mussillon at the Courgette Restaurant. Mr Mussillon took the police to an office, opened the safe and handed police a piece of paper that had been folded several times: the document purporting to be a loan agreement between Mr Leung and Mr Mussillon. The document was false and was produced as a result of the agreement with Mr Al‑Mofathel.

Count 4 – General dishonesty

19․ This count occurred between 2 March 2021 and 13 August 2021 because Mr Al-Mofathel was knowingly concerned in Mr Mussillon’s conduct in fabricating and disseminating false information regarding the loan with the intention of dishonestly influencing a Territory public official, namely Kate Wilson-Smith, the informant, in the exercise of her duty as a public official.

20․ The parties agreed that the following paragraphs of the Statement of Facts showed the communication with police which formed this count: [161]-[165], [171]-[172], [175], [197], [202]-[203] and [290].

21․ This included a range of false statements. It included the false statements that Mr Mussillon made in his conversation with police on 4 March 2021 about having made a loan to “Duncan” (that is, Mr Leung). It also included Mr Mussillon’s statements about the location of the purported loan document and Mr Mussillon pretending that he had removed it from the safe. On 10 March 2021, he contacted police attempting to get the money returned. He repeated statements about the loan document having been in his safe. The count also included statements made by Mr Mussillon during the execution of a search warrant at Mr Mussillon’s residence which continued the story about having made the loan agreement with “Duncan”. Finally, it included statements made on 12 August 2021 in a recorded interview with police where Mr Mussillon told police that Mr Al-Mofathel was an employee at the Courgette Restaurant and gave details of his employment. Subsequently in that interview, Mr Mussillon admitted the falsity of that statement and the fabrication of the story about the loan to “Duncan Leung”.

Count 5 – Trafficking a trafficable quantity of cannabis

22․ Police had been tracking Mr Al‑Mofathel’s vehicle. On the evening of 4 July 2021, the vehicle was stopped, and police found 21.567 kg of dried cannabis in five vacuum sealed bags. Police also found $14,500 in Mr Al‑Mofathel’s backpack. Mr Al-Mofathel denied knowledge of the cannabis at the time.

Count 6 – Contravene s 3LA order

23․ During the execution of a search warrant at an address in Holt, police located two mobile phones. Mr Al-Mofathel denied ownership of one of them, saying it was his sister’s and then saying he found it at a “junkie’s house in Waramanga”. He admitted he owned another phone, an Apple iPhone, that was in a vehicle which was also searched pursuant to a search warrant.

24․ He was provided with s 3LA orders. He declined to provide police with the passwords or unlock either of the mobile phones. He was expressly told that it was an offence not to comply with a s 3LA order. Half an hour later, he was given a second opportunity to provide the passwords and unlock the mobile phones but refused to comply. He was again informed that it was an offence not to provide the requested information to police.

Objective seriousness

Count 1 – Money laundering

25․ The amount of money laundered was substantial, being between $520,228 and $525,228. However, the offence provision is unlimited as to amount. The offending involved purported wages and was not very sophisticated but occurred over a substantial period. The offending related to the collection of money in the car was a simple example of unsophisticated offending. Overall, the offending is in the mid‑range of offending for this offence.

Count 2 – Procure perjury

26․ The principal offending by Mr Mussillon involved brazen and enthusiastically delivered lies. I do not treat Mr Al‑Mofathel as less culpable for that reason. He procured the lying and was the beneficiary of it. It was a deliberate and successful challenge to the administration of criminal justice in the Magistrates Court. This is at the upper end of the mid‑range of objective seriousness.

Count 3 – Make false evidence

27․ This is an offence committed by joint commission. It was for the purpose of recovering for Mr Al‑Mofathel the money that police seized from Mr Leung’s home. Mr Al‑Mofathel was to be the beneficiary of the scheme. Although he had limited involvement in carrying out the scheme, he instigated and coordinated what occurred. His role was equally significant to that of Mr Mussillon. The offence of making false evidence was in the mid‑range of objective seriousness for this offence and Mr Al‑Mofathel had a significant role in instigating and coordinating it.

Count 4 – General dishonesty

28․ This offence occurred because the offender was knowingly concerned in the lies told by Mr Mussillon about the loan to Mr Leung. As pointed out earlier, this was instigated and coordinated by Mr Al‑Mofathel and was for his benefit. Although he did not do the lying, he is equally as culpable as Mr Mussillon. The principal offending is in the mid‑range of objective seriousness and Mr Al‑Mofathel is equally responsible as Mr Mussillon.

Count 5 – Trafficking a trafficable quantity of cannabis

29․ The offending is in the mid-range of quantity and hierarchy within the illicit drug trade. Mr Al‑Mofathel engaged in the activity for profit. Any assistance to his family is unquantified and there is no evidence of their need which might reduce his moral culpability. I do not accept the submission that the Territory’s decriminalisation of the possession of small amounts of cannabis in certain circumstances reduces the objective seriousness of the offending because cannabis should thereby be taken to be less harmful. The legislature has made a decision to maintain the prohibition on trafficking and maintain very significant maximum penalties, to which courts must give effect as a legislative judgment about the overall harmfulness of the activity.

Count 6 – Contravene s 3LA order

30․ The refusal to provide access to the phones in his possession is a mid-range offence. It occurs in the context of admitted drug trafficking and other agreed evidence in the sprawling Agreed Statement of Facts of involvement with uncharged criminal activity. There was no particular urgency or significant adverse consequence that flowed immediately from the failure to comply.

Subjective circumstances

31․ The offender’s subjective circumstances are set out in detail in an intensive correction order assessment report dated 28 March 2024, as well as some character references and other documents that were tendered by the offender.

32․ The date of the sentencing hearing was Mr Al‑Mofathel’s 31^st birthday.

33․ He was born in a refugee camp in Saudi Arabia. His family were refugees from Iraq. He has four siblings. His parents moved with their children to Australia in 1996 when Mr Al‑Mofathel was almost three.

34․ He did not do well at school due to poor behaviour and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). He changed schools multiple times as a result of expulsions. He left school at the age of 14.

35․ He described doing “random cash-in-hand work in construction and other odd jobs” until the age of 21. The evidence did not disclose a coherent history of employment after that time. Rather, it showed that he did not lodge a tax return between 2013 and 2019 and was receiving a disability support pension in the financial years 2013 to 2015. One of the references tendered by the offender was from an employer who had employed the offender approximately six years ago in a metal roofing business. He described him as very hard working, enthusiastic, kind and reassuring, trustworthy and intelligent. It is not clear how this evidence relates to the facts in the Agreed Statement of Facts indicating a lack of employment.

36․ He does not currently have a problem with illicit drugs. He did not disclose any history of illicit drug use prior to his detention on remand.

37․ He is in reasonably good physical health. In the past he was medicated for ADHD. He is not engaged with any health services in prison.

38․ He continues to have the support of his family.

39․ When he spoke to the author of the intensive correction order assessment report, he is reported to have denied or minimised his responsibility for the offending behaviours, although it was submitted at the sentencing hearing that this did not accurately reflect his attitude.

40․ He is assessed as not suitable for a community service work condition because of asthma and a history of a slipped disc injury to his back.

41․ He is assessed as suitable for an intensive correction order.

Criminal history

42․ The offender has a substantial criminal history. [Redacted]. Since then, he has had 11 convictions, including one for a family violence assault occasioning actual bodily harm, one for affray, one for refusing to provide an oral fluid sample, and eight for minor traffic‑related offences. The family violence assault occasioning actual bodily harm occurred in May 2020. It involved striking his female partner at the time to the face and head a number of times, leaving her with bruising and swelling around her left eye and an injury to the back of her head.

Pleas of guilty

43․ In each case, the plea of guilty occurred in the Supreme Court after a criminal case conference but 10 weeks before the trial. The proceedings were listed for an eight‑week trial. I accept the submission that in assessing the utilitarian value of the plea of guilty, it is necessary to have regard not only to the timing of the plea but also the significant burden that such a lengthy trial would have imposed. There is significant utilitarian value in the plea and a reduction pursuant to s 35 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) of 15 percent on account of the plea of guilty is appropriate.

Time in custody

44․ Prior to the date of the sentence hearing, the offender had spent 974 days in custody in relation to the charges. The backdate date is 12 August 2021.

Sentences of co-offenders

Wing Leung

45․ Mr Leung was sentenced by Berman AJ on 2 February 2023: see Director of Public Prosecutions v Leung [2023] ACTSC 15. He possessed $153,600 and was charged with a federal offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime that has a maximum penalty of three years. He was given a sentence of six months, which was to be served by intensive correction.

46․ He also faced a charge of general dishonesty contrary to s 333(7) of the Criminal Code, which carried a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. He was sentenced to nine months’ imprisonment served by intensive correction. These sentences each included a 25 percent discount. The aggregate sentence was 12 months.

James Mussillon

47․ I sentenced Mr Mussillon on 11 April 2023: see DPP v Mussillon [2023] ACTSC 75. Mr Mussillon faced charges equivalent to counts 1, 2, 3 and 4 faced by Mr Al‑Mofathel. The starting points for Mr Mussillon’s sentences were:

(a) money laundering: 24 months;

(b) perjury: 28 months;

(d) general dishonesty: 12 months.

48․ The facts providing the foundation for the charges were very similar to the facts forming the basis for sentencing Mr Al‑Mofathel, although obviously the roles played by Mr Mussillon and Mr Al-Mofathel differ.

49․ There was a significant degree of concurrency between the making of the false evidence count and the general dishonesty count, but otherwise the sentences were cumulative. The aggregate sentence imposed upon him was three years and 11 months and the sentence was suspended after 12 months in custody.

Consideration

50․ The offender’s personal circumstances do not provide a basis upon which his culpability for the offending is reduced. Clearly the circumstances of his parents were difficult at the time that they escaped from Iraq until the time that they came to Australia. Inevitably, the adjustment to life in Australia would have involved significant challenges. However, these aspects of Mr Al‑Mofathel’s background do not provide a basis for treating him as less culpable for the offending.

51․ The offending includes a mix of drugs, law enforcement and administration of justice offences. Of the sentencing purposes in s 7 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act, general deterrence is the most important sentencing consideration.

52․ Particular comment must be made in relation to the s 3LA order. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years. That obviously reflects the legislature’s judgment that a very significant maximum penalty is necessary in order to deter offenders from making the calculation that they will receive a lesser penalty by failing to comply with the order than they would if they complied and their phone could be interrogated. The penalties imposed by courts ought to properly reflect the deterrent calculus involved in the legislature’s selection of a maximum penalty. I have had regard to the lesser sentences imposed for this offence in R v White [2022] ACTSC 178, DPP v Torbert [2023] ACTSC 332 and DPP v Doughty [2023] ACTSC 397, but consider that a sentence as low as that imposed in those cases would fail to give proper weight to the maximum penalty in a context where there is only a limited range of variability in the facts underlying such offending and there is a need to deter calculated decisions to refuse to comply with the direction.

53․ Notwithstanding the significance of general deterrence, each of the other sentencing considerations remains relevant. Mr Al-Mofathel is still a relatively young man, and this is the first occasion when he has been given a custodial sentence. In those circumstances, rehabilitation must remain a significant consideration. This tends to favour a sentence which has within it a substantial period of supervision on parole in the community.

54․ Given that Mr Al‑Mofathel’s two co-offenders have been sentenced for a number of offences the same as or similar to those he now faces, parity is a significant consideration. Generally speaking, I consider that the culpability of Mr Al-Mofathel is greater than that of Mr Mussillon and that his subjective circumstances are less favourable than those of Mr Mussillon. In reaching that conclusion, I have had regard to the particular subjective circumstances of Mr Mussillon outlined in DPP v Mussillon at [37]-[38]. Mr Leung was clearly a subordinate player in relation to the dishonesty associated with the false loan story.

55․ The evidence of remorse and a desire to rehabilitate himself is limited. I treat the letter written to the court which was tendered on behalf of Mr Al‑Mofathel with considerable caution. The evidence was not given on oath or affirmation, and it was unable to be tested. An offender sophisticated enough to be involved in the offending to which he has admitted, is also sophisticated enough to say to the court things that the court may want to hear even if they are not true. There was, however, some evidence from members of his family as well as third parties of a desire by Mr Al‑Mofathel to reform himself. There was also evidence that indicated he retains the support of his family and has employment available when he is released from custody. I give both of those matters some weight.

56․ There is clearly no appropriate sentence on each count other than a custodial one. The sentences that will be imposed on the offences are summarised as follows.

	Max Penalty	Starting point (months)	Sentence (months)	Cumulation (months)
Count 6 (3LA)	10 years	30	25	25
Count 1 (money laundering)	10 years	28	24	12
Count 2 (procure perjury)	7 years	30	25	12
Count 3 (make false evidence by joint commission)	7 years	20	17	12
Count 4 (knowingly concerned in general dishonesty)	5 years	14	12	3
Count 5 (traffic cannabis)	5 years	48	41	24
Total				88

57․ The total of 88 months is seven years and four months. The extent of concurrency between the sentences is determined by the requirements of totality and also the close relationship between the conduct involved in counts 3 and 4.

58․ While, consistent with my decision in DPP v Vincent (No 2) [2023] ACTSC 379 at [71]‑[75], an intensive correction order is available in relation to each of these sentences, I do not consider that it is appropriate that the sentences be served in this way. The length of the sentences is an indicator of the overall gravity of the conduct, and I consider that service of the sentences by intensive correction would fail to adequately address the purposes of sentencing of specific and general deterrence, denunciation, and punishment.

59․ The federal sentence is less than three years and, as a consequence, the prima facie position is that s 19AC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) requires the imposition of a recognizance release order. However, s 19AC(4) permits the court to not make a recognizance release order if the person is expected to be serving a Territory sentence on the day after the end of the federal sentence. The structure of the sentence that I will impose has that effect and, for that reason, it is not appropriate to make a recognizance release order. The non‑parole period that is set in relation to the Territory offences will take into account the existence of the federal sentence. For the purposes of s 19AC(5), these reasons will be published and form part of the records of the court.

60․ So far as a non-parole period on the Territory sentences is concerned, that should be set taking into account the existence of the initial federal sentence that needs to be served. The circumstances are such that a non-parole period that results in the minimum term of full-time detention being 60 percent of the overall sentence would be appropriate. That would give an effective non-parole period on the combined Territory and federal offences of 53 months (being four years and five months). On the Territory offences alone, that means a non-parole period of 40 months.

Orders

61․ The orders of the Court are:

On count 6, the charge of contravene s 3LA order (CAN 8460/2021), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 25 months’ imprisonment commencing on 12 August 2021 and ending on 11 September 2023.
On count 1, the charge of money laundering (SCCAN 201/2022), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment commencing on 12 September 2022 and ending on 11 September 2024.
On count 2, the charge of procure perjury (CAN 202/2021), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 25 months’ imprisonment commencing on 12 August 2023 and ending on 11 September 2025.
On count 3, the charge of make false evidence by joint commission (SCCAN 204/2022), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 17 months’ imprisonment commencing on 12 April 2025 and ending on 11 September 2026.
On count 4, the charge of being knowingly concerned in general dishonesty (CAN 8456/2021), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment commencing on 12 December 2025 and ending on 11 December 2026.
On count 5, the charge of trafficking a trafficable quantity of cannabis (CAN 8459/2021), the offender is convicted and sentenced to 41 months’ imprisonment commencing on 12 July 2025 and ending on 11 December 2028.
The non‑parole period commences on 12 September 2022 and ends on 11 January 2026.

I certify that the preceding sixty-one [61] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Mossop.

Associate:

Date: 6 May 2024