Background
Joshua Muldoon pleaded guilty to three counts of recklessly dealing with proceeds of crime, contrary to s 193B(3) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Four further counts were taken into account on Form 1s. The offences involved money deposited into bank accounts held by Muldoon after victims of online puppy and kitten scams paid purported sellers.
On 14 August 2025, the District Court imposed an aggregate two-year sentence, with an 18-month non-parole period. Muldoon was already serving State and Commonwealth sentences. Although the new term did not extend his total effective sentence, it postponed his parole eligibility by seven months, from 13 July 2026 to 13 February 2027.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted leave and allowed the sentence appeal. It held that the sentencing judge had erred in applying the totality principle because the judge did not intend to extend Muldoon’s existing non-parole period, but miscalculated the practical effect of the sentence imposed.
The parties had submitted that any custodial sentence should be wholly subsumed within Muldoon’s existing non-parole period. The sentencing judge had said the new sentence would have “nil effect,” but the orders in fact added seven months to the time Muldoon had to serve before parole eligibility. The Court resentenced him to two years from 14 August 2025, with a non-parole period of one year, one month and five days, making him eligible for parole on 18 September 2026.
Key Takeaways
- Totality requires attention to a new sentence’s actual effect on both the total term and parole eligibility.
- A sentencing error may arise from a miscalculation of cumulation, even where the sentencing judge understood the governing principles.
- Having upheld the totality ground, the Court did not consider Muldoon’s remaining grounds concerning sentencing reasons and childhood sexual abuse.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that a sentence said to have no practical effect may nevertheless materially increase time in custody by extending the effective non-parole period. Courts sentencing offenders already serving other terms must test the combined effect of their orders, not merely whether the additional head sentence overlaps with existing imprisonment.