Heather Kathleen Power v Regina - [2002] NSWCCA 244

CITATION: Heather Kathleen Power v Regina [2002] NSWCCA 244

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60801/01

HEARING DATE(S): 19 June 2002

JUDGMENT DATE:
19 June 2002

PARTIES :

Heather Kathleen Power v Regina

JUDGMENT OF: Greg James J at 1,43; Smart AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/0713

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Latham DCJ

COUNSEL : (A) M Ramage QC
(C) D Frearson

SOLICITORS: (A) Turner Freeman
(C) S E O'Connor

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - major fraud - principles to be applied - substantial head sentences with lesser non-parole periods

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED:
Pantano (1990) 49 A Crim R 328
Regina v Pearce 194 CLR 610
Corbett 52 A Crim R 112 at 117
Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525

DECISION: See para 42

60801/01

GREG JAMES J

SMART AJ

Wednesday, 19 June 2002

REGINA v HEATHER KATHLEEN POWER

JUDGMENT

1. GREG JAMES J

: The Court is in a position to give judgment immediately. I ask Smart AJ to deliver the first judgment.

2. SMART AJ: Heather Kathleen Power seeks leave to appeal against the asserted severity of sentences imposed on 39 counts of make false instrument, to which she pleaded guilty. The maximum penalty for each offence is ten years. The offences commenced on 16 October 1996 and continued until 27 October 2000, a period of four years. The making of the false instruments resulted in her employer, the National Bank of Australia Limited, being defrauded of large sums of money.

3. She held the middle management position of Personal Banker at the Seven Hills or Blacktown branch of the bank, and had authority to approve loans. She created a number of fictitious loans with fictitious customers. She entered into the NAB computer false details, which satisfied the bank’s requirements for the particular loan in question.

4. On most occasions she drew down the funds the subject of the loans by obtaining bank cheques for the amounts nominated by her.

5. Details of the offences, the sentences and non-parole periods are as follows:

Count Date of Offence Amount Sentence

1. 4 May 2000 $230,000 7 years
NPP 4 years

2. 27 October 2000 $390,000 7 years
NPP 4 years

3. 1-30 June 1999 $310,000 5 years
Fixed Term
4. 14 September 2000 $325,000 7 years
NPP 4 years

5. 14 September 2000 $330,000 7 years
NPP 4 years

6. 23 June 2000 $395,000 7 years
NPP 4 years

7. 9 June 2000 $335,000 7 years
NPP 4 years

8. 8 June 2000 $355,000 7 years
NPP 4 years

9. 1 June 2000 $285,000 7 years NPP 4 years

10. 29 May 2000 $430,000 7 years
NPP 4 years

11 . 16 October 1996 $ 80,000 12 months
Fixed Term

12. 16 December 1996 $130,000 12 months Fixed Term

13. 30 May 1997 $ 64,000 2 years
Fixed Term

14. 13 July 1997 $112,000 2 years
Fixed Term

15. 19 September 1997 $ 95,000 2 years

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Heather Kathleen Power v Regina and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2002] NSWCCA 244
Decision Date: 19 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Heather Kathleen Power versus Regina was brought before the court to determine the appropriate sentence for Power, who had been convicted of major fraud. The court had to decide on the appropriate sentencing framework and the specific terms of the sentence, including the head sentence and non-parole period. The case hinged on the principles governing sentencing for major fraud, specifically focusing on the balance between deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and denunciation.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate length of the head sentence and the non-parole period for Power's sentence. The legal issues centred on applying the correct legal principles to major fraud cases and ensuring that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence while adhering to the overarching sentencing objectives. The court had to consider the totality of the offending, the culpability of the offender, and the need for the sentence to be proportionate to the crime.

In reaching its decision, the court carefully considered the principles applicable to major fraud cases, including the substantial head sentences typically imposed for such offences. The court determined that the head sentence should reflect the seriousness of the fraud, which involved significant financial loss and deceit. The court also assessed the non-parole period, deciding on a term that balanced the need for adequate punishment and the potential for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that included a substantial head sentence and a lesser non-parole period, ensuring that the overall sentence was proportionate to the crime and aligned with sentencing objectives.

Orders