R v Hare

Case [2007] NSWCCA 303 25 October 2007

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v HARE [2007] NSWCCA 303

HEARING DATE(S): 24 September 2007

JUDGMENT DATE:
25 October 2007

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJ at CL at 1; Adams J at 33; Harrison J at 34

DECISION: Appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW – s5D appeal against sentence – obtaining a financial benefit by deception – share trading scheme – fraudulent representations made to induce victims to invest money – matter re-listed for magistrate to put into effect the finding of special circumstances – evidence of respondent’s son’s negative reaction to respondent being in custody – whether sentence manifestly inadequate

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999

CASES CITED: Attorney General’s Application under s 37 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 No 1 of 2002 (2002) 56 NSWLR 146
Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 438
MD, BM, NA, JT [2005] NSWCCA 342; 156 A Crim R 372
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Pont (2000) 121 A Crim R 302
R v Burrell [2007] NSWCCA 79)
R v Hernando [2002] NSWCCA 489

PARTIES: The Crown (Appl)
Gregory Jordy Hare (Resp)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2007/3220

COUNSEL: G Rowling (Crown/Appl)
H Dhanji (Resp)

SOLICITORS: Director of Public Prosecutions (Appl)
Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Resp)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/1029

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Flannery DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 30 March 2007
14 May 2007

2007/3220

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
ADAMS J
HARRISON J
THURSDAY 25 OCTOBER 2007

R v HARE, Gregory Jordy

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: This is a Crown appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 against sentences imposed upon the respondent in relation to 14 charges of obtaining a financial benefit by deception contrary to the provisions of s 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty for each offence was imprisonment for a term of 5 years. The sole ground of appeal is that the sentences imposed are manifestly inadequate.

2 The respondent pleaded guilty to the offences which were described in the following terms:

“That on various dates between 17 June 2003 and 7 December 2005, at Northbridge, Winston Hills and Castle Cove, he dishonestly obtained a financial benefit from each of Nick Ross, Steven Armbrister, Keith Logan, Gerald Steinmann, Tim Kamsler, and Simon Kelly;

(i) Count 1: On 17 June 2003, $50,000 from Nick Ross;

(ii) Count 2: On 11 August 2003, $100,000 from Steven Armbrister;

(iii) Count 3: On 19 August 2003, $50,000 from Nick Ross;

(iv) Count 4: On 18 December 2003, $549,722 from Nick Ross;

(v) Count 5: On 3 August 2004, $15,000 from Keith Logan;

(vi) Count 6: On 23 September 2004, $30,000 from Keith Logan;

(vii) Count 7: On 19 November 2004 $10,000 from Gerald Steinmann;

(viii) Count 8: On 1 December 2004, $211,500 from Nick Ross;

(ix) Count 9: On 16 March 2005,…

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 Hare

Details

AGLC: R v Hare [2007] NSWCCA 303
Case: [2007] NSWCCA 303
Decision Date: 25 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hare was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal in Victoria. The respondent, Hare, was found guilty of obtaining a financial benefit by deception through a share trading scheme. He had made fraudulent representations to several victims, inducing them to invest money. The primary legal issue for the court was whether the sentence imposed by the original magistrate was manifestly inadequate, particularly in light of the special circumstances found by the court. The appeal was brought under section 5D of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), which allows for an appeal against sentence on the grounds that it is manifestly inadequate.

The court considered the evidence of the respondent's son's negative reaction to his incarceration, which was presented as a mitigating factor. However, the court found that this did not outweigh the gravity of the offences committed. The court highlighted that the respondent had deliberately and repeatedly deceived multiple victims, causing significant financial harm. The fraudulent nature of the share trading scheme, combined with the scale of the deception, led the court to conclude that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court's reasoning focused on the need for a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences and provided sufficient deterrence and denunciation.

Following the court's decision, the matter was re-listed for the magistrate to impose an appropriate sentence, taking into account the finding of special circumstances. The court's detailed analysis underscored the importance of ensuring that sentences adequately reflect the nature and impact of criminal conduct, particularly in cases involving deception and significant financial loss. The final orders directed the magistrate to re-sentence the respondent in light of the court's findings.

Orders