P v Hodgson

[2010] NSWLC 6

Local Court of New South Wales

CITATION:	P v Hodgson [2010] NSWLC 6
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
PARTIES:	NSW Police Edward James Hodgson
FILE NUMBER:
PLACE OF HEARING:	Cooma Local Court
DATE OF DECISION:	04/07/2010
MAGISTRATE:	Magistrate van Zuylen
CATCHWORDS:	Larceny, public servant
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes Act 1900 Criminal Procedure Act 1986
CASES CITED:	R v Doan (2000) 115 NSWLR 115 R v Thomson & Houlton 49 NSWLR 383 R v Falzon & Pullen unrep, 20/2/1992, NSWCCA R v Mungomery (2004) 151 A Crim R 376 R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430 R v Swadling [2004] NSWCCA 421 R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49 R v Finnie [2002] NSWCCA 533
TEXTS CITED:
REPRESENTATION:	n/a n/a
ORDERS:	The defendant is convicted and sentenced to a non-parole period of 16 months imprisonment. The defendant is ordered to pay compensation in the sum of $324,476.95 to Australia Post

1 The defendant Edward James Hodgson pleaded guilty to one offence of larceny as a public servant pursuant to section 159 of the Crimes Act (NSW) 1900. The amount of property stolen was the sum of $324,476.95. The money was stolen between 12.01am on 6 November 2009 and 11.59pm on 15 December 2009 at Jindabyne where the defendant was employed as a postal manager with Australia Post.

2 An offence under section 159 of the Crimes Act carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. It is a Table 1 offence under the Criminal Procedure Act where the value of the property exceeds $5,000.00. The maximum penalty for this offence in the Local Court is 2 years imprisonment. The prosecution declined to make an election under the Criminal Procedure Act.

3 The offence on which I have to pass sentence is a matter to which the principles stated by the Court of Criminal Appeal in R v Doan (2000) 115 NSWLR115 apply. In that decision Grove J. (Spigelman CJ, Kirby J agreeing) said at [35]:

“The result of true construction of the statutory provisions in New South Wales is that, what has been described is a jurisdictional maximum and not a maximum penalty for any offence triable within that jurisdiction. In other words, where the maximum penalty is lower because the charge should impose a penalty reflecting the objective seriousness of the offence, tempered if appropriate by subjective circumstances, taking care only not to exceed maximum jurisdictional limit. The implication of the argument of the appellant that, in lieu of prescribed maximum penalties exceeding two years imprisonment, a maximum of two years imprisonment for all offences triable summarily in the Local Court has been substituted must be rejected. As must also be rejected the corollary that a sentence of two years imprisonment should be reserved for a ‘worst case’”.

4 The defendant pleaded guilty to the charge on 3 February 2010, the second return date. The case was first mentioned at Cooma Local Court on 20 January 2010, when it was adjourned for the police prosecutor to refer the case to the DPP to see…