Legal Research
Cases
PC v The Queen

PC v The Queen

Case [2020] NSWCCA 147 1 July 2020

Type to search within this case.

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: PC v R [2020] NSWCCA 147
Hearing dates: 29 April 2020
Decision date: 01 July 2020
Before: Bathurst CJ at [1];
Hoeben CJ at CL at [2];
Harrison J at [143]
Decision:
(1) Leave to appeal granted.
(2) The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – appeal against sentence – 11 offences of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception – 10 further offences of the same kind on three Forms 1 – $3.6 million unaccounted for – whether sentencing judge erred in failing to assess the objective seriousness of the offences – whether sufficient discount for assistance to authorities allowed – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive – objective seriousness of offences properly assessed – no error in discount allowed for assistance – sentence not manifestly excessive – error in formulation of indicative sentences – requirement to set out basis for differences between indicative sentences – error in formulation of indicative sentences not sufficient to require change in the aggregate sentence – appeal against sentence dismissed.

Legislation Cited:
Court Suppression and Non-Publication Orders Act 2010) (NSW) – s 7
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) – s 192E(1)(b)
Crimes Amendment (Fraud Identity and Forgery Offences) Act 2009 (NSW)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) – ss 21A, 23
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) – s 5(1)(c)

Cases Cited:
AB v The Queen [1999] HCA 46;198 CLR 111
Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) CLR 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2
Baumer v The Queen [1988] HCA 67; 166 CLR 51
Bland v R (2014) 241 A Crim R 51/ [2014] NSWCCA 82
Book v R [2018] NSWCCA 58
Cahyardi v Regina [2007] NSWCCA 1; 168 A Crim R 41
DV v R [2017] NSWCCA 276
Frigiani v R [2007] NSWCCA 81
Gal v R [2015] NSWCCA 242
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40
Haouchar v R [2014] NSWCCA 227
Hili v R; Jones v R [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
Hraiki v R [2019] NSWCCA 140
Hughes v R [2013] NSWCCA 129
Hurst v R [2017] NSWCCA 114
Hutchinson v R [2014] NSWCCA 317
JM v R; [2014] NSWCCA 297; 246 A Crim R 528
Johnston v R [2017] NSWCCA 54
Kentwell v The Queen [2014] HCA 37; 88 ALJR 947
Kerr v R [2016] NSWCCA 218
LB v R [2013] NSWCCA 70
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
Matthew v R [2014] NSWCCA 185
Mitchell v Regina [2006] NSWCCA 72
Muldrock v The Queen [2011] HCA 39; 244 CLR 120
Obeid v R [2017] NSWCCA 221
PG v R (2017) 268 A Crim R 61; [2017] NSWCCA 179
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610
Power v Regina [2002] NSWCCA 244
R v Brown [2012] NSWCCA 199
R v Campbell [2014] NSWCCA 102
R v Ehrlich [2012] NSWCCA 35
R…

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 PC v The Queen

Details

AGLC: PC v The Queen [2020] NSWCCA 147
Case: [2020] NSWCCA 147
Decision Date: 01 July 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, PC, was convicted of a series of offences involving the dishonest acquisition of financial advantage through deception. The total value of the unaccounted funds was $3.6 million. PC appealed against the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge, arguing that the judge failed to properly assess the objective seriousness of the offences, did not adequately discount the sentence for PC’s assistance to the authorities, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge correctly assessed the objective seriousness of the offences, if the discount for assistance to the authorities was sufficient, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court held that the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the objective seriousness of the offences, noting that the offences involved a substantial amount of money obtained through deceit over an extended period. Regarding the discount for assistance, the court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the assistance provided and had applied an adequate discount. The court also rejected the argument that the sentence was manifestly excessive, observing that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crimes committed.

In conclusion, the court found no basis to alter the sentence imposed by the original sentencing judge. The appeal against sentence was dismissed, with the court emphasising the need for sentencing judges to provide clear reasoning when formulating indicative sentences, but finding that the error in this case did not necessitate a change in the aggregate sentence.

Orders