DPP v Hampson - [2006] VSC 229

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1444 of 2006

DPP

KENNETH EDWARD HAMPSON

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 June 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 June 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Hampson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 229

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Solicitor in sole practice in Geelong – Trust account deficiency of over $600,000 – Eighteen counts of theft over a period of more than 9 years – pleas of guilty – many mitigating factors – head sentence of 5 years – non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr C. Hillman S.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G. Mullaly	Tony Hannebery

HIS HONOUR:

Kenneth Hampson, you have pleaded guilty to nineteen offences. They consist of one count of having a deficiency in your trust account as a solicitor contrary to s.188 of the Legal Practice Act 1996, and eighteen counts of theft. The maximum penalty for having a trust account deficiency is 15 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for theft is 10 years’ imprisonment. As at 28 February 2002, the trust account deficiency was $623,862.03. That figure was the total of deficiencies in the individual accounts of eighteen clients. Those eighteen clients were the clients from whom money was stolen. The amounts of the thefts ranged from as high as $185,302 on count 14 to as low as $587 on count 8.

The thefts took place between 1992 and 2002. The first theft was in May 1992. The last theft was shortly before a receiver was appointed to take over your law practice on 28 February 2002. During that time, and for many years earlier, you had conducted that practice as a sole practitioner in Geelong. It was a general practice that included conveyancing and assisting in the administration of estates of deceased persons. It was in those two areas that the thefts took place. At all times, you had a trust account and an ordinary account with the Commonwealth Bank as required by statute. Between April 1997 and February 2002, you also, and inappropriately, deposited and withdrew funds from an account at the Bendigo Bank. That account was in your name in trust for a client named Holland. The use by you of that account made it easier for you to continue to steal and to cover up for your thefts for longer than if you had abided by the statutory requirements.

At some times, it is clear that you applied amounts stolen to your own benefit. At other times, it is clear that the amounts were applied to the benefit of other clients. That included restoring money stolen previously. In short, you routinely “robbed Peter to pay Paul”. At many times, it is not clear whether you alone or other clients alone benefited. The complexities of separating self-advancement from the restoration of earlier thefts has had several…

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 Hampson

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Hampson [2006] VSC 229
Case: [2006] VSC 229
Decision Date: 27 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Hampson involved a dispute between the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) and a solicitor, Hampson, who operated a sole legal practice in Geelong. The dispute arose from a significant trust account deficiency of over $600,000, which was the result of numerous thefts committed by Hampson over a period exceeding nine years. Hampson entered pleas of guilty to eighteen counts of theft. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, taking into account the substantial nature of the offence and the various mitigating factors presented.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were the determination of an appropriate head sentence and the establishment of a non-parole period. The court considered the aggravating factors, such as the severity and duration of the thefts, as well as the mitigating factors, including Hampson's otherwise unblemished character and his genuine remorse. The court had to balance these considerations to ensure that the sentence reflected both the gravity of the offences and the personal circumstances of the offender.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the significant breach of trust and the professional misconduct involved in Hampson's actions. Despite the presence of numerous mitigating factors, the court determined that a head sentence of five years was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes. Given the extensive period over which the thefts occurred and the substantial amount involved, the court set a non-parole period of two years and six months. This decision aimed to provide a fair outcome that balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the mitigating aspects of Hampson's case.

The final orders of the court mandated that Hampson serve a total sentence of five years, with a non-parole period of two years and six months. The court's decision underscored the importance of maintaining public trust in the legal profession while also recognising the personal circumstances of the offender.

Orders