R v Cornell

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

R v Cornell [2013] NSWDC 246

Hearing dates:

27 September 2013

Decision date:

27 September 2013

Before:

Berman SC DCJ

Decision:

Referred for assessment as to her suitability to serve her sentence by way on an Intensive Corrections Order.

Order compensation be paid to Allianz Insurance Limited

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence after trial - Dishonestly damage property - Hardship to a third person - Distasteful nature of reliance on hardship when offender took the risk that harm would result from her incarceration

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

Category:

Sentence

Parties:

The Crown
Hiba Cornell

Representation:

A Robertson - Crown
M Breeze - Offender
Director of Public Prosecutions

File Number(s):

2010/14547

SENTENCE

1. HIS HONOUR: On 19 August 2013 Ms Hiba Cornell was found guilty by a jury on one charge of dishonestly damaging property. The maximum penalty for that offence is seven years imprisonment. The charge related to some damage that was occasioned to Ms Cornell's own car. It was scratched all over, one of the headlights was smashed and later the windscreen was smashed as well. The damage was so extensive that the car was written off by Ms Cornell's insurer, Allianz Insurance Limited. She received a payout of the agreed value of the car.

1. The only issue at trial was why the car was damaged. There was no dispute as to who had damaged it. The Crown said that it was damaged pursuant to an agreement between Ms Cornell and her son-in-law, Mr Radwan Barbour so that the insurance claim could be made. But the defence case was that Mr Barbour arranged for the vehicle to be damaged, and then damaged it himself as well, because he was angry with Ms Cornell. Clearly, the jury accepted the Crown version.

1. The Crown case was largely based on intercepted telephone calls. Police were investigating another matter, or even matters, when they overheard incriminating calls relating to the damage of Ms Cornell's car and the subsequent insurance claim. Although Ms Cornell was careful when she spoke on the phone and was clearly aware of at least the possibility that her calls were being monitored, her husband being a detective in the New South Wales police force at the time, nevertheless on the calls at times there were highly incriminating things said, if not by Ms Cornell, then by others involved in the scheme, less disciplined about saying incriminating things on the telephone.

1. The Crown case ultimately, as a result of those telephone calls, was a strong one but without those calls it is unlikely that the offence would have been detected in the first place. That is a factor common to all offences of this type. They are difficult to detect.

1. I am to sentence Ms Cornell on the basis that she dishonestly arranged for her car to be damaged intending to receive the agreed value as a payment from the insurance company once the car was written off. The loss suffered…