McKittrick v R

The case of McKittrick v R involved the sentencing of the applicant, who was found guilty of multiple counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception. The applicant operated two Ponzi schemes, one in Melbourne and another in Queensland, with the second scheme being conducted while the applicant was on bail for charges related to the first scheme. The total amount involved in the fraud exceeded $13 million, with losses exceeding $1 million. The court was tasked with determining whether the delay in charging for the second scheme should be taken into account in sentencing, and whether the principle of totality should apply when sentencing for multiple schemes.

The legal issues before the court were whether the delay in charging for the second scheme should be taken into account in the sentencing, and whether the second judge should have regard to the totality of the offending and the sentence imposed by the first judge. Additionally, the court had to consider the accumulation and effect on the statutory ratio, and whether the non-parole period should be varied.

The court found that the delay in charging for the second scheme was not a mitigating factor in sentencing, as it did not affect the applicant's culpability. The court also found that the second judge had not adequately considered the totality of the offending and the sentence imposed by the first judge, and that the accumulation and effect on the statutory ratio should be taken into account. As a result, the court varied the non-parole period imposed by the second judge. The court held that the second judge should have imposed a sentence that reflected the totality of the offending, and that the accumulation and effect on the statutory ratio should be considered when sentencing for multiple schemes. The court also noted that the delay in charging for the second scheme was not a mitigating factor in sentencing, as it did not affect the applicant's culpability.