Pfeiffer v R - [2009] NSWCCA 145

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Pfeiffer v R [2009] NSWCCA 145

HEARING DATE(S): 2 April 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 May 2009

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Simpson J at 28; Buddin J at 29

DECISION: 1. Leave to appeal is granted and the appeal upheld.
2. The sentence imposed in the District Court is quashed and in lieu thereof and having regard to the matter on the Form 1, the applicant is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 2 years commencing 20 June 2008 and expiring 19 June 2010. Pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 the applicant is ordered to be released on 19 June 2009 upon the provision of security to the amount of $1,000 to be of good behaviour for three years.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - supplying goods and services without disclosing undischarged bankruptcy - applicant in very poor health - whether sentencing judge failed to take into account relevant subjective circumstances - whether sentencing judge erred in respect of applicant's previous good character - appeal dismissed

LEGISLATION CITED: Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth)
Crimes Act 1914

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Paragalli v R [2006] NSWCCA 87
R v Halls & Halls [2002] NSWCCA 55; (2002) 127 A Crim R 209
R v Miranda [2002] NSWCCA 89; (2002) 128 A Crim R 362
Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267
Storen v The Queen (1993) 115 FLR 210

PARTIES: John Clarence Pfeiffer (Applicant)
The Crown

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2006/10194

COUNSEL: P Hamill SC (Applicant)
L K Crowley (Crown)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 2006/31/0009

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Marien DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 20 June 2008

2006/10194

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
SIMPSON J
BUDDIN J
FRIDAY 15 MAY 2009

PFEIFFER, John Clarence v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: The applicant was to be tried before a jury on one count of supplying goods and services without disclosing that he was an undischarged bankrupt contrary to s 269(1)(ad) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). On the 9^th day of his trial he entered a plea of guilty. When sentenced an offence of seeking credit without disclosing his bankruptcy contrary to s 269(1)(a) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 was taken into account on a Form 1. The maximum penalty for an offence contrary to s 269(1) is imprisonment for three years.

2 The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years and nine months, commencing 20 June 2008 and expiring 19 March 2012. Pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914, the sentencing judge ordered that he be released on 19 December 2009 having served 18 months in custody, upon the provision of security to the amount of $1,000 to be of good behaviour for three years.

3 The applicant submitted that the sentencing judge made a number…

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 Pfeiffer v R

Details

AGLC: Pfeiffer v R [2009] NSWCCA 145
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 145
Decision Date: 15 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Pfeiffer v R involved an appeal against the sentence of the applicant, who had been convicted of supplying goods and services without disclosing that he was an undischarged bankrupt. The applicant's health was significantly impaired, and he argued that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider his subjective circumstances. Additionally, the applicant contended that the sentencing judge erred in assessing his previous good character.

The court needed to determine whether the sentencing judge failed to take into account the applicant's very poor health, which was a relevant subjective circumstance. The court also had to decide if the sentencing judge erred in assessing the applicant's previous good character, which was a factor that could have led to a more lenient sentence. The applicant argued that these errors in the sentencing process warranted an appeal.

The High Court held that the sentencing judge did not fail to take into account the applicant's poor health. The court found that the sentencing judge had considered the applicant's health and other personal circumstances in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also concluded that there was no error in the sentencing judge's assessment of the applicant's previous good character. The appeal was dismissed as the court found no basis to interfere with the sentence imposed by the lower court.

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

Orders