Legal Research
Cases
Cooper v The Queen

Cooper v The Queen

Case [2009] NSWCCA 57 11 March 2009

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Cooper v R [2009] NSWCCA 57
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 3 February 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 March 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Grove J at 1; Blanch J at 89; Johnson J at 90

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted.
Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW AND PROCEDURE - Sentence - Bribery and false statements - Complex arrangements to acquire unjustified or accelerated payment - No error by sentencing judge in assessment of sentence for individual offences - Submissions of lack of parity and consistency rejected

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Corporations Act 2001 (Commonwealth)

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606
Pearce v The Queen (1989) 194 CLR 610
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295
R v Martin [2005] NSWCCA 190
R v Rivkin [2004] NSWCCA 7
R v Way (2004) 60 NSWLR 168
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383

PARTIES: Bradley David COOPER - Applicant
REGINA - Respondent/Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2004/4688

COUNSEL: B Walker SC with G Bashir - Applicant
W Abraham QC with B Neild - Respondent/Crown

SOLICITORS: Uther Webster & Evans - Applicant
Commonwealth DPP - Respondent/Crown

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2004/2718

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: James J

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 23 June 2006

LOWER COURT MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2006] NSWSC 609

CCA 2004/4688

GROVE J
BLANCH J
JOHNSON J
11 March 2009

Bradley David COOPER v REGINA

Judgment

1 GROVE J: This is an application for extension of time for seeking leave to appeal against severity of sentence imposed by James J in the Supreme Court on 23 June 2006. The application to extend time was supported by an affidavit by the applicant’s solicitor Ms Vivian Evans sworn 4 September 2008. The content of the affidavit was not challenged. Ms Abraham QC who appeared with Mr Neild for the Crown in their written submissions conceded that some explanation for the delay had been made and that the Crown had not suffered prejudice as a consequence of it, however, it was contended that leave should be refused because the merits of the challenge to sentence lacked prospects of success. Whether that is so can only be determined by consideration of the arguments for and against the grounds which have been raised. I would grant any necessary extension of time.

2 The applicant stood trial upon an indictment containing 13 counts, upon all of which he was found guilty by the jury. Counts 1 – 6 have, for convenience, been referred to as “the bribery offences”. Count 1 charged that on 3 December 2000 the applicant corruptly offered to give William Herbert Howard (Howard), an agent for HIH Casualty and General Insurance Limited (HIH C&G) a…

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.

Continue reading Cooper v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Cooper v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 57
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 57
Decision Date: 11 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Cooper, the appellant, and The Queen, the respondent, with the dispute centring on the appellant's sentence for multiple counts of bribery and making false statements. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The appellant had been found guilty of several counts related to complex schemes involving bribery and false statements, with the aim of obtaining unjustified or accelerated payments. The crux of the appeal was the assessment of the appropriate sentence, which the appellant contended was excessive, particularly in comparison to sentences imposed in other cases involving similar offences.

The legal issues that the court needed to resolve were whether the sentencing judge had erred in assessing the sentence for the individual offences and whether there was a lack of parity and consistency in the sentencing. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate and should be reduced. The court considered whether the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing and whether the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences.

The court held that the sentencing judge had not erred in the assessment of the sentence. It was determined that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the circumstances of the case, including the gravity of the offences, the appellant's culpability, and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court rejected the submissions of the appellant regarding the lack of parity and consistency in sentencing, finding that the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court. The appellant's sentence remains as originally imposed, reflecting the court's view that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principles of sentencing and that the sentence was appropriate given the nature and circumstances of the offences.

Orders