R v Beard - [1999] NSWCCA 392

CITATION: R v BEARD [1999] NSWCCA 392

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60130/98

HEARING DATE(S): 7 December 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
7 December 1999

PARTIES :

REGINA v Stephen BEARD

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J at 22; Hulme J at 23; Barr J at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/21/2015

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: O'Reilly DCJ

COUNSEL: Crown: M Grogan
Applicant: In Person

SOLICITORS: Crown: S E O'Connor
Applicant: In Person

CATCHWORDS:

ACTS CITED: Crimes Act, s 249B(1)

DECISION: Leave to appeal refused

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60130/98

DUNFORD J
HULME J
BARR J
Tuesday, 9 December 1999

REGINA v Stephen BEARD

JUDGMENT

1 BARR J: The applicant Stephen Beard seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him by Judge O’Reilly, QC in the District Court. On 30 November 1998 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count under s 249B(1) Crimes Act that as an agent of his employer bank he corruptly received a benefit as an inducement for providing certain confidential information the property of the bank. The maximum penalty for such an offence is imprisonment for seven years. His Honour sentenced him to imprisonment for two years and provided for a minimum term of one year and additional term during which the applicant should be at large on probation of one year.
2 The applicant was employed by Advance Bank between November 1993 and March 1997. In January 1995 he was appointed subpoena clerk in the records and administration department of the bank and his duties included obtaining documents and information required under subpoenas and audit certificates. His duties required him to have access to the bank’s computer records, including records of account application forms completed by clients or prospective clients of the bank. Those forms contained confidential information about individual applicants, including the particulars of driving licences, work, financial and personal matters.
3 During 1995 the applicant spent some time in Parramatta Gaol, apparently because he was refused bail. There he met a man calling himself Christopher Mishwills, who learned where the applicant worked. Mishwills must have spoken about the applicant to a man known in these proceedings only as Bill. Bill told a man called Christian Curut. Curut telephoned the applicant at work and invited him to meet him at a nearby cafe. The applicant did so and there occurred the first of a number of meetings during which the proposition was put to the applicant that he would be rewarded if he obtained confidential information about clients of the bank and made them available. It was made clear by Curut that he was acting on behalf of the man Bill. Apparently Curut never knew his real name and his Honour accepted that the applicant never knew Bill’s real name. The story was that Bill was setting up a business for the distribution of products of a certain kind and that the provision of information of the kind requested would assist in the identification of customers who might be approached…

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 R v Beard

Details

AGLC: R v Beard [1999] NSWCCA 392
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 392
Decision Date: 7 December 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal was asked to determine whether the applicant, Stephen Beard, should be granted leave to appeal against his sentence. The applicant was convicted under section 249B(1) of the Crimes Act for corruptly receiving a benefit as an inducement for providing confidential information belonging to his employer, a bank. The maximum penalty for this offence is seven years imprisonment. Beard was sentenced to two years imprisonment with a minimum term of one year and an additional term of one year on probation. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence in relation to the sentences given to other parties involved in the same scheme.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Beard was excessive and disproportionate when compared to the sentences received by other participants in the same fraudulent scheme. The court considered various factors including the breach of trust, the applicant's health, and the sentences handed down to co-conspirators. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionate due to the sentences of his co-conspirators and other mitigating factors such as coercion and substandard police investigation.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced all relevant factors, including the breach of trust and the nature of the offence. The court held that the sentence was well within the sentencing discretion of the trial judge. The court also dismissed the applicant's arguments regarding the authenticity of documents used in sentencing and coercion, finding them to be without merit. The Court concluded that the sentence was not disproportionate, and therefore, refused the application for leave to appeal.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, and the applicant was to be taken into custody.

Orders