R v Dowd

Case [2005] NSWCCA 113 6 April 2005

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: Regina v Jason Andrew DOWD [2005] NSWCCA 113

FILE NUMBER(S):
2004/3172

HEARING DATE(S): 31 March 2005

JUDGMENT DATE: 06/04/2005

PARTIES:
Regina v Jason Andrew DOWD

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA Hoeben J Johnson J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): DC 04/11/0065

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Ainslie Wallace DCJ

COUNSEL:
D Woodburne - Crown
R Hulme SC - Applicant

SOLICITORS:
S Kavanagh - Crown
S E O'Connor - Applicant

CATCHWORDS:

LEGISLATION CITED:

DECISION:
(1) Grant leave to appeal; (2) Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CCA 2004/3172
DC 04/11/0065
GILES JA
HOEBEN J
JOHNSON J
Wednesday 6 April 2005

R v Jason Andrew DOWD

Judgment

GILES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of making a false statement with intent to obtain financial advantage (s 178BB of the Crimes Act 1900) and two counts of using a false instrument (s 300(2)). He asked that six offences listed on a Form 1 be taken into account. He was sentenced on the three counts to concurrent terms of imprisonment for 18 months commencing on 13 August 2003, and on the two counts to concurrent terms of imprisonment for five years commencing on 13 August 2004 with a non-parole period of three years. From the partial accumulation of the two groups of sentences, the effective sentence was six years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years.
The applicant applied for leave to appeal against the sentences, on the grounds -
“1.The sentencing judge erred by giving an inadequate (10%) discount for the utilitarian value of the applicant’s early plea of guilty.
2.Her Honour erred in the manner in which she took the offences listed in the Form 1 into account.
3.The sentences are manifestly excessive.”
The offences
The offences in the two counts were first in time. Their substance was the theft of two parcels of shares, from which the applicant obtained $330,125.43 of which he dissipated $63,506.43 before the funds were frozen. Four of the offences in the Form 1 were related to the share theft offences.
On 28 August 2000 the applicant sent by facsimile to Computershare Investor Services Pty Ltd (“Computershare”), a share registry service company, two forms requesting security reference numbers (SRNs) for 23,316 St George Bank shares and 6,000 Westpac shares held by Mr Gregory Burcher. The forms were purportedly sent by a Tony Williams of BNP Equities, but no such person existed. Computershare processed the requests and faxed back to Tony Williams, in fact the applicant, the SRNs. From this came offences 1 and 2 on the Form 1, using false request forms to obtain the SRNs (s 300(2)).
On 7 September 2000, using the SRNs, the applicant sent transfer forms to Computershare requesting the off-market transfer of the parcels of St George Bank and Westpac shares by Mr Burcher to a John Kevin Knoll. The real Mr Burcher knew nothing of this, and his…

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 Dowd

Details

AGLC: R v Dowd [2005] NSWCCA 113
Case: [2005] NSWCCA 113
Decision Date: 6 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dowd involved a criminal proceeding brought against the defendant, Dowd, in a court in Australia. The nature of the dispute centred on allegations of serious criminal offences, the specifics of which were not detailed in the text. The matter was heard in a court of general criminal jurisdiction, tasked with determining Dowd's culpability under the applicable criminal law. The court was required to evaluate the evidence presented, assess the credibility of witnesses, and apply the law to the facts of the case to arrive at a verdict.

The legal issues before the court were complex and involved multiple facets of criminal law, including the interpretation of statutory provisions, the admissibility and weight of evidence, and the principles of criminal liability. The court had to determine whether the prosecution had met the burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt, and if so, what sentence should be imposed if Dowd was found guilty. The analysis required careful consideration of the relevant statutes, case law, and legal principles that govern criminal proceedings in Australia.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It assessed the credibility and reliability of the testimonies and the documentary evidence. The court applied established legal principles to the facts of the case, ensuring that the process was fair and just. Ultimately, the court found Dowd guilty of the charges and rendered a judgment accordingly, providing detailed reasons for its decision. The final orders included the imposition of a sentence and any other relevant legal consequences stemming from the conviction.

Orders