John Michael Higgins v Regina - [2006] NSWCCA 38

CITATION: John Michael HIGGINS v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 38

HEARING DATE(S): 22 February 2006

JUDGMENT OF: Spigelman CJ at 1, 40; Barr J at 37; Howie J at 38

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 02/22/2006

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal granted.; 2. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE APPEAL– Application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence. - CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE APPEAL– Subjective circumstances - Belief by those committing fraud or misappropriation that they will rectify the situation before being caught is common and not entitled to substantial weight in the sentencing exercise. - CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE APPEAL– Whether trial judge gave sufficient reasons regarding the factors in s16A(2)(a) of Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). - CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE APPEAL– Whether sentence manifestly excessive. - CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE APPEAL– Special Circumstances – Considerable weight to be accorded to general deterrence in white-collar crimes involving breach of trust.

LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): s1041G
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth): s16A
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW): s178A
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure Act) 1999 (NSW): s21A

CASES CITED: R v Corbett (1991) 52 A Crime R 112
R v Dubois (2004) 88 SASR 304

PARTIES: John Michael Higgins (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2032/2005

COUNSEL: M.B. Lee (Applicant)
W. Abraham (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Harris Freidman Page (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 04/11/1056

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Woods DCJ

- 9 -

2005/2032

SPIGELMAN CJ
BARR J
HOWIE J

Wednesday 22 February 2006

John Michael HIGGINS v REGINA

Judgment

1 SPIGELMAN CJ: Between February 1998 and August 2002 the Applicant operated as an investment adviser through Macquarie Towns Financial Services Pty Limited (“MTFS”), a company controlled by the Applicant. Whilst acting as an investment adviser the Applicant had the proper authorisation enabling him to act as a securities representative for AMP Financial Planning between April and November 1995; Financial Wisdom Limited, April 1995 to March 2000; Matrix Planning Solutions, March 2000 to May 2001; and Garrisons Limited, May 2001 to March 2002.

2 The Applicant was charged with three charges of dishonest conduct contrary to s1041G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and fifteen charges of fraudulent misappropriation contrary to s178A of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

3 The three charges contrary to s1041G of the Corporations Act were all in the following form:

“Between about (date) and about (date), at Sydney in the State of New South Wales being a person carrying on a financial services business, namely, Macquarie Town Services Pty Limited, engaged in dishonest conduct in the course of carrying on that business by holding himself out to a person as an authorised financial adviser when that authority had been revoked.

4 The fifteen charges contrary to s178A of the Crimes Act were all in the following form:

“On or about (date) at Sydney in the State of New South Wales fraudulently misappropriated to his own use certain money, namely, the sum of $X, in violation of the…

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 John Michael Higgins v Regina

Details

AGLC: John Michael Higgins v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 38
Case: [2006] NSWCCA 38
Decision Date: 02/22/2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of John Michael Higgins against Regina, the appellant sought to appeal the severity of his sentence following a conviction for defrauding a financial institution. The Federal Court of Appeal was tasked with assessing the grounds of the appeal, focusing on the perceived harshness of the sentence and whether the trial judge adequately considered the relevant statutory factors during sentencing. The appellant argued that the trial judge failed to appropriately weigh the circumstances of the offence, particularly the belief that the fraud would be rectified before detection, and did not sufficiently address the factors outlined in section 16A(2)(a) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the trial judge's consideration of the appellant's belief that the fraud would be rectified was appropriately factored into the sentencing process, whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, and whether the trial judge gave adequate reasons concerning the statutory factors. Additionally, the court needed to consider the weight to be given to general deterrence in cases of white-collar crime involving breaches of trust.

The court found that the appellant's belief that the fraud would be rectified before detection was a common factor in such cases and did not warrant substantial weight in the sentencing decision. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in this regard and had appropriately exercised discretion. Furthermore, the court determined that the trial judge had provided sufficient reasons for the sentence, aligning with the statutory requirements. Given the nature of the offence and the importance of general deterrence in white-collar crimes, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders