R v Hocking
[2018] ACTSC 297
•29 October 2018
SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Hocking |
Citation: | [2018] ACTSC 297 |
Hearing Date: | 29 October 2018 |
DecisionDate: | 29 October 2018 |
Before: | Elkaim J |
Decision: | See [17] |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – bribery |
Legislation Cited: | Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 356(2) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 10 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Christopher Hocking (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Ms R Khazma (Crown) Mr J Lawton (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 199 of 2018 |
ELKAIM J:
On 2 August 2018, the offender pleaded guilty to one charge of bribery, contrary to s 356(2) of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).
The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of $150,000. The lengthy maximum term of imprisonment is a reflection of the seriousness of the offence.
In August 2016, the offender began working at Transport Canberra and City Services (TCCS) as a project manager.
Part of his role was to facilitate the tender process for the assorted projects that TCCS was undertaking. One of the companies that the offender dealt with was called Complex Civil. The first contract made by the offender with this company was for the value of $23,580.
Following the above contract the offender contacted a principal of Complex Civil and effectively proposed an illegal system in which the company would achieve a favoured status in the awarding of contracts, in exchange for $100,000.
Fortunately, because of the recognition of illegality by Complex Civil, the scheme did not come into fruition and no money changed hands.
The offender was born in 1980 in the United Kingdom. Unfortunately, his mother committed suicide when he was three years of age and he was brought up, in Western Australia, by his father.
The offender has two children from different partners. Although he did not think he was drinking too much at the time of the offending he was drinking far too much alcohol, anxious about his financial situation and struggling with personal relationships.
The Pre-Sentence Report suggests that there is a low risk of future reoffending. This is mostly because the offender is trying to do something about his alcohol consumption.
There is a report from a psychologist which gives detail of the alcohol dependency and talks about the counselling the offender has undertaken. The psychologist thinks there have been some gains from the counselling but he concludes:
As at the time of writing I am of the opinion that Mr. Hocking is aware of the seriousness of his actions, but there is still some issues with regard to Emotional Intelligence or poor judgment when considering consequences due to some Impulse-Control issues.
There are many references written on behalf of the offender. They give details of the good work that he has done including helping young people with special needs. They suggest his offending is out of character and that he is generally a decent man and a good friend.
The only matter in the offender’s criminal history is an offence of behaving in an offensive manner. This was in 2013 and was dealt with under s 10A of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). This means that a conviction was not recorded. The facts are very minor. The offender is entitled to the leniency that would usually be attributed to a person without a record.
I accept that the offence was out of character for this offender and prompted by his alcohol abuse and stress from his personal circumstances. Nevertheless, it is a serious offence because it impacts upon the capacity of persons in business being able to obtain and attract business in a fair and honest manner. It also involves a government entity so that the public funds, that is the funds of the people of the territory, are put at risk if the tender process results in the projects not being performed by the entities best suited to perform them. There is clearly a need for general deterrence.
The offender has lost his job but has commenced work as an arborist.
I need to apply the objects and principles of sentencing which are contained in the Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) and also to take account of s 10 which says that a prison sentence must be a last resort.
I also need to take into account the early plea of guilty which attracts a discount of 25%.
I made the following orders:
(a)In respect of the offence of bribery (CC 2018/5982), the offender is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 18 months’ (reduced from 24 months) to commence today and end on 28 April 2020.
(b)The period of imprisonment is suspended with immediate effect on condition that the offender enter into a good behaviour order with core conditions including that he accept the supervision of the director of corrective services for such time as the director thinks appropriate and that he undertake, as directed, any appropriate alcohol abuse counselling.
| I certify that the preceding seventeen [17] numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Sentence of his Honour Justice Elkaim. Associate: Date: |
0
0
2