R v Hopkins - [2021] NSWDC 410

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Hopkins [2021] NSWDC 410
Hearing dates: 22 April 2021; 25 May 2021
Decision date: 25 May 2021
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: GD Woods QC ADCJ
Decision:
With the application of 25% discount the offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 6 years. There is to be a non-parole period of 4 years.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – Fraud – s 1041G Corporations Act (Cth) - Totality - Financial misbehaviour – Misappropriation and wrongful movement of monies – Ponzi type fraud – Financial service provider – Early guilty plea – Cooperation with ASIC – Position of trust – Deceptive behaviour – Mental condition contributing to misbehaviour

Legislation Cited:
Commonwealth Corporations Act 2001
Commonwealth Crimes Act
Crimes Act 1914
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act

Cases Cited:
Beattie v The Crown [2017] NSWCCA 301
Kannis v The Crown [2020] NSWCCA 79.
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610

Category: Sentence
Parties: Australian Securities Investment Commission
Ross Andrew Hopkins
Representation:
Counsel:
Mr S Boland – The offender
Solicitors:
Director for Public Prosecution (Cth)
NYST Legal – The Offender

File Number(s): 2020/00313973
Publication restriction: There is to be no publication of the names of the victims of these offences or of any material which may tend to identify those victims.
There is to be no publication of the name of the accused’s daughter.

Judgment

This is the sentence of Ross Andrew Hopkins in relation to 15 fraud-type offences. On the last occasion I made a non-publication order and I confirm that that non-publication order continues with respect to the identification of victims of the offences.
The offences arise under s 1041G of the Commonwealth Corporations Act 2001. The 15 matters are essentially similar in legal structure save and except as to the difference in the possible maximum penalty as to charges or counts 13 and 15.
Exhibit SA in these proceedings is Crown bundle which includes 17 tabbed sections. Tabs 13 to 17 are not evidence as such but merely assist by way of providing references to possibly comparable cases. Tab 12 is the Crown written submissions which I have carefully considered, as I have carefully considered the submissions of the defence.
There have been early pleas of guilty to all charges, showing the offender’s cooperation with the authorities. This will attract the appropriate discount of 25% from what otherwise would have been an appropriate sentence. 25% is a discount which I regard as appropriate. I will also take into account some elements of contrition exhibited in other aspects of the evidence, and other relevant considerations.
Tab 4 of exhibit SA reflects the cooperation of the offender and his communication with the authorities of the details of this saga of financial misbehaviour. He has been willing to admit his guilt at an early point and I will take that into account. Tab 4 of exhibit SA is important and I will go through that in more detail…

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 Hopkins

Details

AGLC: R v Hopkins [2021] NSWDC 410
Case: [2021] NSWDC 410
Decision Date: 25 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hopkins was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Hopkins, was found guilty of various offences relating to financial fraud, including misappropriation and wrongful movement of monies, which amounted to a Ponzi-type fraud. Hopkins, who was a financial service provider, pleaded guilty to the charges and cooperated with the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC). The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for Hopkins, taking into account factors such as the totality of the offending, the defendant's position of trust, deceptive behaviour, and the contribution of mental conditions to the offending.

The primary legal issue before the court was the sentencing of Hopkins for his financial crimes. The court needed to consider the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's cooperation with authorities, and his early guilty plea. Additionally, the court had to weigh the mitigating factors, including Hopkins' position of trust and the impact of his mental condition on his offending. The court also had to determine the appropriate term of imprisonment and the non-parole period.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the gravity of Hopkins' offending, which involved significant financial harm to many victims. The court acknowledged the defendant's early guilty plea and cooperation with ASIC, which were considered mitigating factors. However, the court also noted the breach of trust and the deceptive nature of the offending. After applying a 25% discount for the guilty plea and cooperation, the court sentenced Hopkins to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 6 years, with a non-parole period of 4 years.

The final orders of the court mandated that Hopkins serve a total of 6 years in prison, with a non-parole period of 4 years. The sentence reflected the court's consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to protect the public from similar offending in the future.

Orders

Orders of the court

With the application of 25% discount the offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 6 years. There is to be a non-parole period of 4 years.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Hopkins [2021] NSWDC 410
Hearing dates:	22 April 2021; 25 May 2021
Decision date:	25 May 2021
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	GD Woods QC ADCJ
Decision:	With the application of 25% discount the offender is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for 6 years. There is to be a non-parole period of 4 years.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – Fraud – s 1041G Corporations Act (Cth) - Totality - Financial misbehaviour – Misappropriation and wrongful movement of monies – Ponzi type fraud – Financial service provider – Early guilty plea – Cooperation with ASIC – Position of trust – Deceptive behaviour – Mental condition contributing to misbehaviour
Legislation Cited:	Commonwealth Corporations Act 2001 Commonwealth Crimes Act Crimes Act 1914 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Cases Cited:	Beattie v The Crown [2017] NSWCCA 301 Kannis v The Crown [2020] NSWCCA 79. Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Australian Securities Investment Commission Ross Andrew Hopkins
Representation:	Counsel: Mr S Boland – The offender Solicitors: Director for Public Prosecution (Cth) NYST Legal – The Offender
File Number(s):	2020/00313973
Publication restriction:	There is to be no publication of the names of the victims of these offences or of any material which may tend to identify those victims. There is to be no publication of the name of the accused’s daughter.