Legal Research
Cases
R v Institoris

R v Institoris

Case [2002] NSWCCA 8 15 February 2002

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
(2002) 129 A Crim R 458

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Institoris [2002] NSWCCA 8

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60271 of 2001; 60399 of 2001

HEARING DATE(S): 4 October 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 February 2002

PARTIES :

REGINA v ROBERT INSTITORIS

JUDGMENT OF: Mason P at 1; Levine J at 2; Howie J at 76

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/0123

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Kinchington J

COUNSEL :
R Sutherland S.C.
(Crown)
C Loukas
(Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
(Crown)
Mark Rumore
(Respondent)
In Person
(Appellant)

CATCHWORDS: Crown appeal on inadequacy of sentence - counterfeiting - gravity of offence - general deterrence - no settled range of sentences

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Currency) Act 1981 (Cth)

CASES CITED:
Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 74 ALJR 1538
Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295
Gilson v The Queen (1991) 172 CLR 353
Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293
Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Malvaso v The Queen (1989) 168 CLR 227
Oliver (1980) 7 A Crim R 174
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Queen v Alpass (1993) 72 A Crim R 561
R v Holder & Johnston (1983) 3 NSWLR 245
R v Tait (1979) 46 FLR 386
Regina v Baker [2000] NSWCCA 85
Regina v Hart [1999] NSWCCA 204
Regina v Vachalec (1981) 1 NSWLR 351
Regina v Thompson & Coulton [2000] 15 A Crim R 105
The Queen v Anthony Frank Howard [1986] 82 Cr. App. R. 262
The Queen v Bugeja [2001] NSWCCA 196
The Queen v Eddy Grant (Court of Criminal Appeal (Victoria), unreported, 27 June 1994)
The Queen v G R Beeforth (Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 24 November 1995)
The Queen v M K T Joon (Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 8 April 1994)
The Queen v Rohde & Ors (1985) 17 A Crim R 166
The Queen v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 458
Veen v The Queen (No 2) (1988) 164 CLR 465
Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64

DECISION: By majority 1. Crown appeal allowed 2. Respondent appeal dismissed. Sentence on Count 12 quashed and in lieu respondent sentenced to 5 years imprisonment to commence on 29 May 2004; non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months to date from 29 May 2000 and expire on 28 November 2005, the date upon which respondent is eligible for release to parole

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

60271 of 2001

60399 of 2001

MASON P

LEVINE J

HOWIE J

15 February 2002

REGINA v ROBERT INSTITORIS

Judgment

1 MASON P: I agree with Howie J.

2 LEVINE J: The respondent appeals against the severity of sentences imposed upon him in the District Court on 12 April 2001 by his Honour Judge…

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 Institoris

Details

AGLC: R v Institoris [2002] NSWCCA 8
Case: [2002] NSWCCA 8
Decision Date: 15 February 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the appellant, Institoris, who was convicted of counterfeiting and was sentenced to imprisonment. The Crown appealed, contending that the sentence imposed was inadequate, given the nature and seriousness of the offence. The High Court of Australia was asked to determine whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, and if so, whether it should be increased.

The legal issues before the court were whether the original sentence imposed on Institoris was manifestly inadequate, and if so, what the appropriate sentence should be. The court was required to consider the gravity of the offence, the need for general deterrence, and the absence of a settled range of sentences for counterfeiting. The court also had to consider the principles of sentencing, including the need to balance the rights of the offender with the interests of the community.

The court found that the sentence imposed on Institoris was manifestly inadequate, given the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The court noted that counterfeiting is a serious offence that undermines the integrity of the currency and can have significant economic consequences. The court also considered that there was no settled range of sentences for counterfeiting, which meant that the sentence should be determined on a case-by-case basis. The court found that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, but that the length of the sentence needed to be increased. The court ultimately decided that a sentence of five years' imprisonment was appropriate, taking into account the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence.

The High Court allowed the Crown's appeal and increased the sentence imposed on Institoris to five years' imprisonment. The court emphasised the importance of considering the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence when sentencing for counterfeiting. The court also noted that the absence of a settled range of sentences for counterfeiting meant that each case needed to be considered on its own merits. The decision serves as a reminder to the lower courts of the importance of considering the principles of sentencing when imposing a sentence for counterfeiting.

Orders