R v Entwistle

Case [2021] NSWDC 159


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Entwistle [2021] NSWDC 159
Hearing dates: 19 March 2021
Date of orders: 26 March 2021
Decision date: 26 March 2021
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:

ICO for 1 yr 11 months with 500 hours community service, and fine of $10,000.

Catchwords:

CRIME – SENTENCE – Cth offence – Public servant engaged in conduct with the intention of dishonestly obtaining an advantage for himself and other – Misuse of computer system of DAWR to obtain data relevant to importing formwork plywood to give an advantage to others involved in that trade and in the expectation of personal gain – No actual benefit obtained for himself – Offending over 18 months period – Guilty plea – Late – Significant utilitarian value – Discount of 15% allowed – Prior good character – Nearly 12 years service in Army, including active service overseas – Unlikely to reoffend.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

Criminal Code (Cth)

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999

Cases Cited:

Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144

Lee v R [2020] NSWCCA 307

R v Einfeld [2009] NSWSC 119

R v Farquhar (unreported CCA, 29 May 1985)

R v Jackson and Hakim (1988) 33 A Crim R 33

R v Obeid (No 12) [2016] NSWSC 1815

Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267

Wany v The DPP [2020] NSWCA 318

Category:Sentence
Parties: Crown – Regina
Offender – Jarrod Entwistle
Representation:

Crown:
Counsel – D. New
Solicitors – CDPP

Offender:
Counsel – S. Lawrence
Solicitors – Sydney Criminal Lawyers
File Number(s): 2019/00205648
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

  1. HIS HONOUR: Jarrod Entwistle stands for sentence as a consequence of having pleaded guilty to a charge that between 24 April 2016 and 10 October 2017 at Sydney in this State, he, being a Commonwealth public official, engaged in conduct in the exercise of his duties as a Commonwealth public official and did so with the intention of dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself and another person. That is an offence contrary to s 142.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act of the Commonwealth of Australia. The maximum penalty for the offence is five years' imprisonment and/or a fine of $54,000.

  2. The offender was charged by a Court Attendance Notice first returnable in the Downing Centre Local Court on 16 July 2019. He was committed for trial by Atkinson LCM on 18 February 2020. He was arraigned in this Court on 20 March 2020 on an indictment containing four counts. The first count is the count to which the offender ultimately pleaded guilty. The second count in the original indictment was a count in the alternative and the third and fourth counts were offences alleged to be contrary to s 478.1(1) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The first was modifying restricted data and the second was having unauthorised access to restricted data. To those four counts the offender pleaded not guilty. The matter was then set down for…

Continue reading R v Entwistle

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Entwistle [2021] NSWDC 159
Case
[2021] NSWDC 159
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Entwistle, the defendant was found guilty of engaging in dishonest conduct while serving as a public servant, with the intent to gain an advantage for himself and others. The misuse involved the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment's computer system to obtain data concerning the importation of formwork plywood, aiming to benefit others in that trade while expecting personal gain. Although no actual financial benefit was gained by Entwistle, the misconduct spanned over an 18-month period. Entwistle entered a guilty plea, albeit late, and the court recognised the significant utilitarian value of his actions, leading to a 15% discount. The defendant also had a commendable prior record, including nearly 12 years of service in the Australian Defence Force, which factored into the sentencing considerations.

The court had to navigate several legal issues, including the nature and extent of the dishonest conduct, the absence of direct financial gain to the defendant, the utilitarian value of his actions, and the appropriateness of a discount given the late plea. Additionally, the court considered Entwistle's prior good character and military service in determining the sentence. The court also needed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence against the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation and the likelihood of reoffending.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the seriousness of the breach of trust and the significant impact on public confidence in governmental integrity. However, it also took into account the utilitarian value of Entwistle’s actions, his prior good character, and the low likelihood of reoffending. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence of 1 year and 11 months imprisonment, with a requirement to complete 500 hours of community service, and a fine of $10,000. This sentence reflected both the need for punishment and the potential for Entwistle’s rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders

Orders of the court

ICO for 1 yr 11 months with 500 hours community service, and fine of $10,000.

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.