Legal Research
Cases
DPP (Cth) v Page

DPP (Cth) v Page

Case [2006] VSCA 224 20 October 2006

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 273 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (C’TH) v. JEFFREY ERIC PAGE
	No. 274 of 2006
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (VIC.) v. JEFFREY ERIC PAGE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (VIC.) v. DARYL JOHN CORKER	No. 275 of 2006
No. 276 of 2006
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS (VIC.) v. DALE ROBERT LYNCH

---

JUDGES:	VINCENT, EAMES and REDLICH, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	18 October 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 October 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 224

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Crown appeals - White collar crime – Secret commissions – Long term thefts – Pleas of guilty – Senior manager in position of trust – Contractors gaining monopoly over work with major public enterprise – Early release on partially suspended sentences or recognisance – Manager sentenced to total effective sentence of four year’s imprisonment but to be released after four months – Contractors sentenced to total effective sentence of three years’ imprisonment with 33 months suspended – Manifest inadequacy – Appeals allowed – Longer periods of actual imprisonment ordered (18 months for manager; 9 months for contractors) – Crimes Act 1914 (C’th) ss.21(6), 29B, 71; Criminal Code (C’th) ss.131.1, 134.1, 135.1; Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (C’th) s.320(a)(d); Crimes Act 1958 ss.176 (2)(b), 176(1)(b), 181 (a); Sentencing Act 1991, s.27(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For DPP (C’th) and DPP (Vic.)	Ms W. Abraham, Q.C.	Instructed by the Solicitor for the Commonwealth DPP and Ms A. Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Vic.)
For the Respondent Page	Mr L.C. Carter with Mr G.W. Casement	Bullards
For the Respondents Lynch and Corker	Mr O.P. Holdenson, Q.C. with Mr J.B. Saunders	John Curtain & Associates

VINCENT, J.A.:

I agree with the disposition of these matters proposed by Eames, J.A. and for the reasons advanced by him in his judgment.

EAMES, J.A.:

The Director of Public Prosecutions for Victoria appeals against sentences imposed on Dale Robert Lynch and Daryl John Corker following their pleas of guilty each to 14 counts of corruptly giving a valuable consideration contrary to s.176(2)(b) of the Crimes Act 1958. The Victorian Director also brings an appeal with respect to sentences imposed by the same judge on Geoffrey Eric Page on 11 counts of corruptly receiving a valuable consideration contrary to s.176(1)(b) of the Crimes Act and one count of aiding and abetting the corrupt receipt of valuable consideration contrary to s.181(a) of the Crimes Act.

In addition, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions appeals against sentences imposed on Page with respect to Commonwealth offences which were dealt with on the same presentment.

Page pleaded guilty to one count of stealing Commonwealth property contrary to s.71 of the Crimes Act 1914, to one count of stealing Commonwealth property contrary to s.131.1 of the Criminal Code, to three counts of defrauding the Commonwealth, contrary to s.29B of the Crimes Act 1914, to one count of dishonestly causing a loss to the Commonwealth, contrary to s.135.1 of the Criminal…

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 DPP (Cth) v Page

Details

AGLC: DPP (Cth) v Page [2006] VSCA 224
Case: [2006] VSCA 224
Decision Date: 20 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) versus Page involved multiple defendants who had engaged in various forms of white-collar crime, including the receipt of secret commissions and long-term thefts. The defendants held senior managerial positions and were in a position of trust, manipulating their roles to secure a monopoly over work with a major public enterprise. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against sentences that seemed manifestly inadequate given the nature and impact of the crimes committed. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentences imposed were appropriate in light of the defendants' roles and the gravity of their offences.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the adequacy of sentences in relation to the severity of the crimes committed by senior managers and contractors. The primary focus was on whether the sentences, which included partially suspended sentences or recognisance, adequately reflected the breach of trust and the long-term nature of the offences. The court had to consider various sentencing principles and statutory provisions, including the seriousness of the offences, the role of the offenders, and the necessity for deterrence and denunciation.

The court found that the original sentences were manifestly inadequate, failing to properly account for the breach of trust and the significant impact of the defendants' actions. The sentencing principles were not sufficiently applied, leading to an underestimation of the need for actual imprisonment and deterrence. The appeals were allowed, and the court imposed longer periods of actual imprisonment. The senior manager was ordered to serve an additional 14 months, bringing the total effective sentence to 18 months, while the contractors were to serve an additional 6 months, making their total effective sentence 9 months. The court emphasized the importance of reflecting the seriousness of the crimes in the sentencing, ensuring that the sentences served as a deterrent and a denunciation of such conduct.

Orders