Independent Commission Against Corruption v Karkowski

Local Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Independent Commission Against Corruption v Karkowski [2012] NSWLC 6
Hearing dates:	26/06/2012
Decision date:	26 July 2012
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Judge Henson, Chief Magistrate
Decision:	See [43], [47]-[48]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - multiple counts of corruptly receive benefit - two further fraud offences - defendant a building inspector for local council - defendant's awareness of intrinsically corrupt nature of conduct - impact on public confidence in proper and transparent local government operations and decision making - need for denunciation and deterrence - corruption offences require imposition of sentence of imprisonment - home detention appropriate, subject to suitability assessment
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Local Government Act 1993
Cases Cited:	Markarian v The Queen (2005) 215 ALR 213 R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102 R v Doan (2000) 50 NSWLR 115 R v Duong (1999) 109 A Crim R 60 R v Fryar (unreported, District Court, Charteris DCJ, 12/3/2010, 2009/7836) R v Kennedy [2000] NSWCCA 527 R v Nomchong (unreported, NSWCCA, 10/4/1997) R v O'Mally [2005] NSWCCA 166 R v Pangallo (1991) 56 A Crim R 441 R v Taylor [2000] NSWCCA 442 R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 Retsos v R [2006] NSWCCA 85
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Independent Commission Against Corruption (the informant) Edward Karkowski (the offender)
Representation:	Mr Baltinos for the offender Mr Stainer for the DPP
File Number(s):	2012/31059
Publication restriction:	Nil

Judgment

1. The offender appears before the Court to be sentenced in relation to 5 counts of corruptly receiving a benefit and 2 counts of fraud. The charges are brought pursuant to section 249B(1)(a)(i) and section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900. Four of the counts of corruptly receiving a benefit are to be the subject of a sentence. One count has been placed on a Form 1 under section 32 of the Criminal Procedure Act 1986. The charges arise out of an investigation conducted by and a hearing before the Independent Commission Against Corruption.

1. The maximum penalty for an offence against section 249B(1)(a)(i) is 7 years imprisonment when dealt with on indictment. The maximum penalty for an offence contrary to section 192E(1)(b) is 10 years imprisonment. The prosecution makes no election to proceed on indictment.

1. When prosecuted to finality within the Local Court an offence of fraud is a Table 1 offence within the Criminal Procedure Act 1986 attracting a jurisdictional maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment. The maximum jurisdictional penalty for the offence of corruptly receiving a benefit, inducement or reward depends on the value of the benefit or reward obtained. Where the benefit or reward exceeds $5,000 the offence falls within Table 1 of the Act. Where the benefit or reward is less than this figure the offence is classified as a Table 2 offence. In such instance the maximum jurisdictional penalty is 12 months imprisonment. Based on the facts tendered by the prosecution each of these charges fall…