DPP v Adams - [2006] VSCA 149

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 43 of 2006

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
LEITH RICHARD ADAMS

---

JUDGES:	VINCENT, ASHLEY and REDLICH, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	15 June 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	7 July 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 149	1^st Revision 12 July 2006

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Director’s appeal against sentence – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Financial adviser – Multiple counts of theft and using a false document – Lack of remorse and appreciation of the dishonest nature of the offending – Importance of general deterrence – Sentence plainly inadequate – Suspension of substantial part of sentence contributed to inadequacy – Respondent re-sentenced and minimum non-parole period fixed

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C., D.P.P. with Mrs C.M. Quin	Mr S. Carisbrooke Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C. with Mr N. Hutton	Mike Wardell

Redlich, J.A. delivered the judgment of the Court (Vincent, Ashley and Redlich, JJ.A.):

This is an appeal by the Crown against sentence. On 24 October 2004 the respondent was presented in the County Court at Ballarat on 32 counts of theft and four counts of using a false document (the 1^st presentment). The respondent entered a plea of not guilty to all counts. Following a trial which lasted two weeks, the jury found the respondent guilty of twenty one counts of theft and three counts of using a false document. The following day, 8 November, the respondent was presented on six counts of theft to which he pleaded guilty (the 2^nd presentment). Following a plea in mitigation, the respondent on 26 January was sentenced as follows:

1^st Presentment R01138366.1
·     count 3 - theft – 1 month imprisonment
·     count 10 - theft – 6 months’ imprisonment
·     count 11 - theft – 9 months’ imprisonment
·     count 13 - theft – 9 months’ imprisonment
·     count 14 - theft – 9 months’ imprisonment
·     count 16 - theft – 9 months’ imprisonment
·     count 17 theft – 6 months’ imprisonment
·     count 18 - theft – 9 months’ imprisonment
·     count 19 - theft – 9 months’ imprisonment
·     count 20 – theft - 6 months’ imprisonment
·     count 21 – theft - 6 months’ imprisonment
·     count 22 - theft – 9 months’ imprisonment
·     count 24 – theft - 6 months’ imprisonment
·     count 25 – theft - 6 months’ imprisonment
·     count 26 – using a false document – 9 months’ imprisonment
·     count 27 - theft – 9 months’ imprisonment
·     count 28 - theft – 1 month imprisonment
·     count 29 – using a false document – 9 months’ imprisonment
·     count 30 - theft – 10 months’ imprisonment
·     count 32 - theft – 9 months’ imprisonment
·     count 33 - theft – 9 months’ imprisonment
·     count 34 – using a false document – 9 months’ imprisonment
·     count 35 - theft…

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 v Adams

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Adams [2006] VSCA 149
Case: [2006] VSCA 149
Decision Date: 7 July 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against the sentence imposed on the respondent, who was convicted of multiple counts of theft and using a false document in his role as a financial adviser. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence imposed on the respondent was manifestly inadequate. The court was required to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the respondent's lack of remorse, and the importance of general deterrence in determining the adequacy of the sentence.

The court held that the original sentence was plainly inadequate, primarily due to the suspension of a substantial part of the sentence. The court emphasised the severity of the offences, the respondent's lack of remorse, and his failure to appreciate the dishonest nature of his actions. The court also noted the importance of general deterrence in cases involving breaches of trust by professionals. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, re-sentenced the respondent, and fixed a minimum non-parole period.

The court's reasoning was based on the need for a sentence that reflected the gravity of the offences and the need to uphold public confidence in the financial sector. The court considered the respondent's lack of remorse and his failure to appreciate the dishonest nature of his actions as significant factors in determining the inadequacy of the original sentence. The court also highlighted the importance of general deterrence in cases involving breaches of trust by professionals. The court's decision to re-sentence the respondent and fix a minimum non-parole period was aimed at ensuring that the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

Orders