SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v BE |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 101 |
Hearing Dates: | 10 November 2017, 26 and 27 February 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 1 March 2018 |
Before: | Mossop J |
Decision: | See [53] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentencing – Commonwealth offences – obtaining a financial advantage from another person by deception – falsified invoices – circumstances leading to offending – offender diagnosed with depression, anxiety and stress – early plea of guilty – provided assistance to authorities to facilitate administration of justice – monies repaid – general deterrence – consideration of s 16A(2) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) – period of imprisonment suspended after four months – recognizance release order |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A(1), 16A(2), 16A(2)(k), 16A(2)(p), 17A, 20AB Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 134.2, 134.2(1) |
Cases Cited: | Barbaro v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58 Hayes v The Queen [2014] VSCA 309 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) BE (Defendant) |
Representation: | Counsel P Botros (Crown) K Archer (Defendant) |
| Solicitors Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Darryl Perkins Solicitors (Respondent) | |
File Number: | SCC 206 of 2017 |
MOSSOP J:
Introduction
BE has pleaded guilty to the offence of obtaining a financial advantage from another person by deception. The person from whom he obtained a financial advantage is the Australian Sports Commission (“ASC”), a Commonwealth entity. The conduct was contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The maximum penalty for this offence is imprisonment of up to 10 years.
Facts
The facts are agreed. The offender commenced employment as Assistant Director of Capital Works at the ASC on 1 October 2013. He was required as part of his job to project manage capital and minor works programs. This included the negotiation and coordination of external service providers and managing the invoicing process to ensure providers were paid.
He had a financial delegation approval of $100,000. Payments greater than $5000 required a purchase order to be approved by two staff members. When the ASC contracted with a new supplier, the supplier would be added to the ASC financial system through the completion of a “Request for New/Amended Supplier” form. When an invoice was received from the supplier, a financial delegate had to approve it.
The offender was the sole director and shareholder of a company called [Redacted for legal reasons]. That company was…
Continue reading R v Be
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Be [2018] ACTSC 101
- Case
- [2018] ACTSC 101
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentencing framework for the offence, particularly in light of the appellant's early guilty plea, repayment of the monies, and assistance provided to authorities. The court was also required to consider the appellant's mental health issues, specifically depression, anxiety, and stress, in determining the sentence. The appellant's legal team argued for a non-custodial sentence due to these mitigating factors, while the prosecution sought a sentence that would adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and promote general deterrence.
The court found that the appellant's early guilty plea, cooperation, and repayment of the stolen funds were significant mitigating factors. However, the court also emphasised the need for general deterrence and the importance of upholding the integrity of the financial system. The court imposed a custodial sentence of six months imprisonment, to be suspended after a period of four months, followed by a period of recognizance release. The court concluded that this sentence balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, taking into account all relevant factors, including the appellant's mental health issues.
Orders
Orders of the court
See [53]
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.