Application for leave to appeal against sentence - Knowingly giving false or misleading evidence in an examination conducted by the Australian Crime Commission - Whether sentence manifestly excessive - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth), s 30(2), s 33(1)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A, s 19, s 20(1)(b)
Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 27

Result:

Leave to appeal refused
Appeal dismissed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: No appearance

Solicitors:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; (2010) 242 CLR 520
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Lam v The Queen [2014] WASCA 114
Mercanti v The Queen [2011] WASCA 120; (2011) 249 FLR 223; (2011) 210 A Crim R 213
Mousavi v The Queen [2014] WASCA 174
R v Abell [2007] QCA 448
R v Drever [2010] SASCFC 27
R v Hood [2007] NSWDC 157
R v Nash [2008] SASC 48; (2008) 100 SASR 109
R v Perry [2011] QCA 236
R v Rivkin [2004] NSWCCA 7
R v Rodd; Ex parte Attorney‑General (Qld) [2008] QCA 341

REASONS OF THE COURT: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence.
The appellant pleaded guilty to six charges of knowingly giving false or misleading evidence in an examination conducted by the Australian Crime Commission (ACC), contrary to s 33(1) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth) (the Act).
On 31 July 2014, after pleading guilty, the appellant was sentenced on each charge to 2 years' imprisonment with an order that he be released after 1 year upon giving a recognisance pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) in the sum of $20,000 to be of good behaviour for the balance of the sentence. His Honour ordered that all of the sentences be served concurrently with each other. Thus the total effective sentence was 2 years' imprisonment with an order that he be released on recognisance after 12 months.
The sole proposed ground of appeal, as expressed in the appellant's case filed 20 October 2014, alleges that the individual sentences were manifestly excessive.
For the reasons which follow, the proposed ground of appeal has no reasonable prospect of succeeding. Accordingly, leave to appeal must be refused and the appeal dismissed: s 27 of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA).

The facts of the offending

There is no dispute as to the facts of the offences.
On 30 April 2009, the board…

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 Forsyth v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Forsyth v The Queen [2015] WASCA 36
Case: [2015] WASCA 36
Decision Date: 27 FEBRUARY 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Forsyth v The Queen, the appellant was convicted for knowingly providing false or misleading information during an examination by the Australian Crime Commission. The appellant applied for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the court, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The case was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was disproportionate to the offence committed.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offence, as well as the principles of sentencing and proportionality. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate, while the respondent maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the need to deter similar conduct in the future.

The High Court of Australia found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence but also considered the appellant's personal circumstances and the sentence's impact on them. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the offence and did not constitute an abuse of the court's discretion. As a result, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The High Court of Australia did not make any orders beyond dismissing the appellant's application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The sentence imposed by the lower court remained in effect, and the appellant was not granted permission to appeal further.

Orders