Cranshaw v R - [2009] NSWCCA 80

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: CRANSHAW v REGINA [2009] NSWCCA 80
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): Wednesday 15 April 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 August 2009

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Hall J at 2; RA Hulme J at 77

DECISION: (1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Appeal upheld.
(3) The sentences imposed by the District Court on 5 June 2008 in respect of the offence, sequence 205 (and the matters on the Form 1 in relation to that offence), be set aside.
(4) The applicant be re-sentenced in respect of the offence of obtaining a financial advantage in the sum of $315,000 (sequence number 205) and taking into account the matters on the Form 1, to a term of imprisonment comprising a non-parole period of one year and eight months to commence on 26 March 2009 and to expire on 25 November 2010 with a balance of term of one year and four months to expire on 25 March 2012.
Accordingly, the first date on which the applicant will be eligible for parole will be 25 November 2010.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – particular offences – applicant was involved in an organised crime syndicate which took over the identities of legitimate individuals and entities in order to defraud financial institutions – applicant was instructed by syndicate organiser and attended banks where he provided fraudulent identification and bank documents to withdraw funds – application of parity principles – co-offenders – the sentencing judge’s finding in relation to the applicant’s criminality and relativity to his co-offenders was open on the evidence – whether the sentencing judge varied the statutory ratio adequately pursuant to a finding of special circumstances – a longer period of supervision ought to have been provided to give effect to the sentencing judge’s finding of special circumstances – applicant resentenced to reduce total effective non-parole period by four months

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Lowe v Regina (1984) 154 CLR 606
Regina v Ellis (1993) 68 A Crim R 449
Regina v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17

PARTIES: Darren Mark CRANSHAW
v REGINA

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA No 2007/15103

COUNSEL: Crown: N J Adams
App: S Kluss

SOLICITORS: Crown: CDPP
App: Homeless Persons Legal Service

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 07/11/0586

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Blackmore DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 5 June 2008

2007/15103

GILES JA
HALL J
R A HULME J
TUESDAY 25 AUGUST 2009

DARREN MARK CRANSHAW v REGINA

Judgment

1 GILES JA: I agree with Hall J.

2 HALL J: The applicant, by notice lodged on 24 December 2008, seeks leave to appeal in respect of sentences imposed upon him by the District Court of New South Wales on 5 June 2008.

3 The applicant was sentenced in respect of the following offences:-

• Ten offences contrary to s.178BA of the

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 Cranshaw v R

Details

AGLC: Cranshaw v R [2009] NSWCCA 80
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 80
Decision Date: 25 August 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Cranshaw, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria, which found him guilty of several counts of fraud and conspiracy. He was part of an organised crime syndicate that assumed the identities of legitimate individuals and entities to defraud financial institutions. Cranshaw was instructed by the syndicate organiser, attended banks, and provided fraudulent identification and bank documents to withdraw funds. The appeal centred on the application of parity principles in sentencing and the adequacy of the sentence imposed in relation to his co-offenders.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the sentencing judge's assessment of Cranshaw's criminality and relativity to his co-offenders was correct, and if the judge adequately varied the statutory ratio in light of the findings of special circumstances. Additionally, the court had to determine whether a longer period of supervision was necessary to reflect the sentencing judge's finding of special circumstances.

The court found that the sentencing judge's assessment of Cranshaw's criminality and relativity to his co-offenders was open on the evidence. However, the court held that the sentencing judge did not adequately vary the statutory ratio pursuant to the finding of special circumstances. As a result, the court considered that a longer period of supervision was warranted to give effect to the sentencing judge's finding of special circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and Cranshaw was resentenced to a total effective non-parole period that was reduced by four months.

The final orders included the resentencing of Cranshaw, reducing his total effective non-parole period by four months. The court mandated that a longer period of supervision be applied to reflect the special circumstances identified by the sentencing judge.

Orders