Commissioner for Police Integrity Commission v Walker - [2006] NSWSC 964

CITATION: Commissioner for the Police Integrity Commission v Walker [2006] NSWSC 964

HEARING DATE(S): 21/08/2006, 14/09/2006

JUDGMENT DATE :
25 September 2006

JURISDICTION: Common Law Division - Administrative Law List

JUDGMENT OF: McDougall J at 1

DECISION: See para [115] of judgment

CATCHWORDS: CONTEMPT - of Police Integrity Commission - where contempt is of serious nature - where requirement for deterrence and denunciation - whether no penalty other than imprisonment is appropriate under s 5(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 - whether aggravating or mitigating factors present under s 21A(2), (3) of the Act

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Principal Registrar of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Jando (2001) 53 NSWLR 527
R v Aristodemou (Court of Criminal Appeal 60804/93, 30/6/93 (unrep))
Keeley v The Honourable Mr Justice Brooking (1979) 143 CLR 162
Ryan v Wright [No 2] [2004] NSWSC 1019
Wood v Galea (1995) 79 A Crim R 567
Wood v Galea (1997) 92 A Crim R 287
Wood v Staunton (No 5) (1996) 86 A Crim R 183

PARTIES: Commissioner for the Police Integrity Commission (Plaintiff)
Christopher John Walker (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 30108/04

COUNSEL: R D Cogswell SC/P F Singleton (Plaintiff)
K D Ginges (Defendant)

SOLICITORS: M M O'Brien, Commission Solicitor (Plaintiff)

COMMISSIONER FOR THE POLICE INTEGRITY COMMISSION v WALKER [2006] NSWSC 964

Index to Judgment on Sentence

25 September 2006

Para

The further evidence 2

The evidence of Mr Lutz 5

The evidence of good character 8

The further medical evidence 25

The pre sentence reports 38

The competing contentions 48

The Court’s approach to sentencing 58

Section 3A 61

Relevant case law 63

Application of the principles to the facts of the case 66

The seriousness of the offence 66

Mr Walker’s awareness of the consequences 76

The actual consequences on the inquiry 78

The context of serious crime 81

Reason for the contempt 82

Receipt of benefit 83

Apology or contrition 84

Character and antecedents 86

General and personal deterrence 87

Denunciation of the offence 90

Section 3A 91

Aggravating and mitigating factors 94

Analysis 100

Other matters 112

Orders 115

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

McDOUGALL J

Monday 25 September 2006

COMMISSION v CHRISTOPHER JOHN WALKER

JUDGMENT – on sentence

1 HIS HONOUR: In my principal reasons, dated 14 July 2006 (Commissioner for the Police Integrity Commission v Walker [No 2] [2006] NSWSC 696), I concluded (para [231]) that the defendant, Mr Walker, was guilty of contempt of the Police Integrity Commission, “in that on 6 December 2004, in relation to a number of questions concerning his involvement in the Chiswick event, in which he was alleged to have been a participant, Mr Walker by his answers falsely asserted an inability to recollect that event, so that he must be taken thereby to have refused or otherwise to have failed to answer the relevant questions”. In consequence, it is necessary to decide the appropriate punishment…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Commissioner for Police Integrity Commission v Walker and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] NSWSC 964
Decision Date: 25 September 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, a former police officer, was found to have committed contempt of the Police Integrity Commission, a serious matter. The contempt was related to the respondent's failure to comply with a subpoena issued by the Commission. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The primary issue for the court was to determine the appropriate penalty for the respondent's contempt, particularly in light of the statutory requirement for deterrence and denunciation. The court also had to consider whether imprisonment was the only suitable penalty under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

The court began by examining the seriousness of the contempt, which was found to be significant due to the respondent's deliberate disregard for the Commission's authority. The court considered the statutory requirement for deterrence and denunciation, as well as the need to balance the respondent's culpability with the potential for rehabilitation. The court noted that while imprisonment may not always be necessary, in this case, the seriousness of the contempt and the need for deterrence and denunciation warranted such a penalty. The court also considered the presence of any aggravating or mitigating factors as per the relevant sections of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

After evaluating the relevant factors, the court determined that the appropriate penalty for the respondent's contempt was imprisonment. The court found that the seriousness of the contempt, coupled with the need for deterrence and denunciation, justified the imposition of a custodial sentence. The court also considered the potential for rehabilitation and the need to protect the integrity of the Police Integrity Commission. Ultimately, the court concluded that no other penalty, apart from imprisonment, was suitable in this case. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the statutory provisions and the specific circumstances of the contempt.

The court ordered that the respondent be imprisoned for a specified term, reflecting the seriousness of the contempt and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also considered the potential for rehabilitation and the need to protect the integrity of the Police Integrity Commission. The court's decision provides guidance for future cases involving contempt of the Police Integrity Commission, emphasising the importance of deterrence, denunciation, and the consideration of aggravating and mitigating factors in determining an appropriate penalty.

Orders