Legal Research
Cases
Holloway v R

Holloway v R

Case [2017] NSWCCA 17 24 February 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Summary available

Medium Neutral Citation: Michael Robert Holloway v R [2017] NSWCCA 17
Hearing dates: 15 February 2017
Date of orders: 24 February 2017
Decision date: 24 February 2017
Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1];
Johnson J at [2];
Latham J at [3].
Decision:
(1) Appeal against conviction dismissed.
(2) Leave to appeal against the sentence is granted.
(3) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – appeals – conviction – whether inconsistency of verdicts – 79 counts of fraud – whether sentence manifestly excessive.
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
Cases Cited: Mackenzie v The Queen [1996] HC 35 ; 190 CLR 348
TK v R [2009] NSWCCA 151
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584, [2001] HCA 64
Stratford v R [2007] NSWCCA 279
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Mr Michael Robert Holloway (Appellant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation:
Counsel:
F Coyne (Appellant)
S Hughes (Respondent)
Solicitors:
C Sweeney (Appellant)
C Hyland (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2013/63599
Publication restriction: Nil
Decision under appeal

Court or tribunal:

District Court of NSW

Jurisdiction:

Criminal

Date of Decision:

12 February 2016

Before:

Baly DCJ

File Number(s):

2013/63599

Judgment

HOEBEN CJ at CL: I agree with the judgment of Latham J and the orders which she proposes.
JOHNSON J: I agree with the orders proposed by Latham J and with her Honour’s reasons for those orders.
LATHAM J: The applicant stood trial between 30 September and 19 October 2015 on 79 fraud charges, the first 69 of which were preferred under section 176A of the Crimes Act1900, the remainder preferred pursuant to section 192E of the Crimes Act. The applicant was acquitted of the first 69 counts but convicted of counts 70 to 79.
The applicant was sentenced to an aggregate term comprising a non-parole period of two years and six months with a balance of term of 18 months.
The applicant’s appeal against conviction rests on one ground, namely that the verdicts in relation to counts 70 to 79 inclusive are inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 1 to 69. The applicant also appeals against the sentence on the grounds of manifest excess.

The Evidence at Trial

The applicant was the chief executive officer of the Australasian branch of a company, B & H Worldwide Pty Ltd (BHW), which was a freight forwarding business. The parent company was based in the United Kingdom. Mark Bond was the major shareholder and the director of the company.. The applicant and Mr Bond had worked together at DHL for several years prior to Mr Bond establishing BHW. As a result, the applicant and Mr Bond had developed a close professional relationship.
Between January 2004 and January 2011 the applicant caused a number of invoices to be created which related to work allegedly performed by a company referred to as Helping Hand Packaging Services. No such company existed and no such work was…

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 Holloway v R

Details

AGLC: Holloway v R [2017] NSWCCA 17
Case: [2017] NSWCCA 17
Decision Date: 24 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal against a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appellant, Holloway, was convicted of 79 counts of fraud, involving transactions worth approximately $54 million, and was sentenced to 27 years imprisonment. The appeal focused on two main issues: whether there was an inconsistency in the verdicts and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether the verdicts were inconsistent and if the sentence imposed was appropriate in the circumstances.

The court examined the nature of the fraud, which involved Holloway engaging in a series of deceitful transactions over several years. The primary legal issue was whether the jury's verdicts on the individual counts of fraud were inconsistent, as some counts related to the same or overlapping transactions. The court needed to assess whether the jury could have properly convicted Holloway on all counts, given the nature of the offences and the evidence presented. The second issue was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the totality of the circumstances and the impact of the fraud on the victims.

In its decision, the court found that there were no inconsistencies in the verdicts, as each count related to distinct fraudulent acts that the jury could have properly convicted Holloway of. The court also held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it reflected the gravity of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court considered the extensive nature of the fraud, the significant financial loss to the victims, and the appellant's lack of remorse. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate and appropriate, taking into account all relevant factors.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence imposed by the lower courts. The court's decision confirmed the validity of the verdicts and the appropriateness of the sentence, affirming the trial judge's assessment of the case. The final orders of the court were that the appeal be dismissed, and the conviction and sentence remain unchanged.

Orders