R v Gentz - [1999] NSWCCA 285

CITATION: REGINA v GENTZ [1999] NSWCCA 285 revised - 20/09/99

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60362/99

HEARING DATE(S): 9 September 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 September 1999

PARTIES :

The Crown (Appl)
Jennifer Gentz (Resp)

JUDGMENT OF: Newman J at 1; Simpson J at 21; Hidden J at 23

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/0107

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Dodd DCJ

COUNSEL: D J Fagan SC (Crown/Appl))
M A Marty (Resp)

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth DPP (Appl)
Christopher Levingston & Associates (Resp)

CATCHWORDS:

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60362/99

NEWMAN J
SIMPSON J
HIDDEN J

THURSDAY, 9 SEPTEMBER 1999

REGINA v Jennifer Evesald GENTZ

JUDGMENT

1    NEWMAN J: This is a most extraordinary appeal. The Crown has appealed against a sentence of periodic detention for two years imposed in the District Court by Dodd, DCJ on the respondent. I say "extraordinary" because this case has, as its nub, events which occurred after the commission of the subject crime. Perhaps it would be best if I turn at the outset to the matter which brought the respondent before the District Court.
2    She stood charged, and indeed pleaded guilty, to the charge of defrauding the Commonwealth contrary to s 29D of the Commonwealth Crimes Act 1914. Her criminal involvement came about as a consequence of duties she had been performing within the Department of Defence. Between January 1997 and May 1998, the respondent performed a dual role at the Defence National Stores and Distribution Centre at Moorebank. She was employed as both a system operation manager and a certifying officer. Normally, the administrative arrangements would require that those positions be operated by separate persons. Apparently, for reasons of economy, a decision had been made that one person could do both roles.
3    Effectively that meant that within the department the system of checks and balances as to expenditure of Commonwealth monies was removed.
4    The long and short of it was that between those dates in January 1997 and May 1998, the respondent carried out a system of defrauding the Commonwealth involving the not unfamiliar procedure of raising false invoices which nominated as persons, and I use it in the sense of legal persons, for payment which, in fact, meant the funds went directly to her.
5    Eventually, as is often the case, she was found out when, perchance, somebody started to scrutinise what was going on. However that scrutiny ultimately revealed that a sum of some $196,000 had been obtained by the respondent by virtue of her fraudulent scheme. Indeed, when she gave an account of where she had expended the money, some $26,000 odd still remained unexplained.
6 In the normal course of events the respondent would have received a substantial term of full-time custody. As has rightly been submitted on behalf of the Crown, in matters of this type in the ordinary course of events, general deterrence is a matter of great importance. Indeed, there are numerous decisions of this Court which indicate that…

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 Gentz

Details

AGLC: R v Gentz [1999] NSWCCA 285
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 285
Decision Date: 9 September 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Regina v Gentz, the Crown appealed against the sentence of periodic detention imposed by Dodd DCJ on the respondent, Jennifer Gentz, for defrauding the Commonwealth. The case revolved around the respondent's fraudulent activities while she was employed by the Department of Defence, where she held dual roles that led to the embezzlement of approximately $196,000 through false invoices. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the importance of general deterrence in such cases, referencing previous decisions that emphasized custodial sentences for similar crimes involving the Commonwealth.

The legal issues before the Court of Criminal Appeal included whether the District Court correctly assessed the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the extraordinary events that followed the crime. The Crown argued that the sentence should have been full-time custody, but the Court found that the subsequent events, particularly the attack on the respondent and her daughters by her husband, rendered the case extraordinary and warranted a different approach to sentencing.

The Court of Criminal Appeal concluded that the District Court's imposition of a sentence of periodic detention was appropriate, given the extraordinary circumstances that took the case outside the normal sentencing considerations. The judges found that the respondent had already been sufficiently punished and that the need for general deterrence was outweighed by the unique facts of the case. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of periodic detention was upheld.

Orders