R v GAC

The applicants, GAC and another, were convicted on their own pleas of guilt to three counts of fraud exceeding $5,000 and five counts of passing valueless cheques. The applicants were sentenced to six years’ imprisonment for two fraud counts, three years for one fraud count and 12 months for each of the valueless cheques counts. The parole eligibility date was set at 22 months from the start of the imprisonment. The applicants sought leave to appeal against their sentences, contending that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicants also sought a variation of the parole eligibility date, and an alternative suspended sentence.

The applicants argued that the sentencing judge had discounted two months from the parole eligibility date for their cooperation in providing information about serious criminal activity. The applicants contended that the head sentence was not disputed and that the parole eligibility date should be varied to reflect the two months of cooperation. The applicants also sought a suspended sentence, on the basis that they would benefit from supervision. The applicants conceded that amending the parole eligibility date might not effectively reduce the time they would spend in prison. The applicants argued that a suspended sentence was appropriate in their circumstances.

The Court granted the applicants leave to appeal against their sentences. The Court found that the parole eligibility date should be varied to reflect the two months of cooperation by the applicants. The Court held that while the applicants had provided information about serious criminal activity, this did not warrant a substantial reduction in the parole eligibility date. The Court allowed the appeal to the extent that the parole eligibility date was varied, substituting 23 October 2007 in lieu of 25 February 2008. The Court found that a suspended sentence was appropriate in the applicants’ circumstances, given their acceptance of responsibility and the benefits they would derive from supervision.