R v Irwin - [1999] NSWCCA 361

CITATION: REGINA v IRWIN [1999] NSWCCA 361

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60228/99

HEARING DATE(S): Tuesday, 12 October 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 October 1999

PARTIES :

The Crown
Robert James Irwin (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF: Newman J at 1; Studdert J at 57; Hulme J at 58

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 98/11/0662

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Woods QC DCJ

COUNSEL: P G Berman (Crown)
S J Odgers (Respondent)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor (Crown)
Trevor Nyman & Company (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS: Crown appeal; inadequacy of sentence; act with intent to pervert the course of justice; give false evidence; bribery; police corruption.

ACTS CITED: Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Crimes Act
Police Integrity Commission Act
Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989

CASES CITED:
Griffith v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293 at 310
R v Pangallo (1991) 56 A Crim R 441 at 443
Ibbs v The Queen (1991) 163 CLR 447
R v Nomchong, Court of Criminal Appeal, unreported, 10 April 1997

DECISION: Crown appeal upheld

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60228/99

NEWMAN J
STUDDERT J
HULME J

TUESDAY, 12 OCTOBER 1999

REGINA v Robert James IRWIN

JUDGMENT

1 NEWMAN J: This is an appeal by the Crown brought pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912. The respondent to the appeal was sentenced by his Honour, Judge Woods QC at the District Court in Sydney on 27 April 1999.
2    Before his Honour the respondent was initially arraigned on two charges and an alternative charge. In fact, the respondent pleaded guilty to the alternative charge and the second charge.
3    The alternative charge to which he pleaded guilty was that between 2 July and 6 December 1997 he did an act, namely, incite a person to tamper with items seized by the New South Wales police at 1 Jacques Street, Kingsford, on 2 July 1997, with an intent thereby to pervert the course of justice. The Crown accepted the plea of guilty to that alternative charge in satisfaction of the first count on the indictment.
4 The maximum penalty imposed by s 319 of the Crimes Act for the crime of doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice is 14 years penal servitude. The second count on the indictment, to which the respondent pleaded guilty, was that he did knowingly give false evidence on 9 December 1997 at Sydney, to the Police Integrity Commission. Section 107 of the Police Integrity Commission Act imposes a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment or a fine of 200 penalty units or both.
5    In any event, his Honour sentenced the respondent on the first count to a minimum term of twelve months penal servitude dating from 27 April 1999 and expiring on 26 April 2000. He didn't find special circumstances and imposed what I would describe as an orthodox additional term of four months commencing April 2000 and expiring on 26 August 2000.
6 In relation to the second count, his Honour imposed a…

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 Irwin

Details

AGLC: R v Irwin [1999] NSWCCA 361
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 361
Decision Date: 12 October 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Irwin involved the Crown appealing the sentence of a convicted police officer who was found guilty of providing false evidence, bribing a witness, and acting with intent to pervert the course of justice. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue for the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was inadequate given the gravity of the officer's misconduct and the impact of his actions on the administration of justice.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentencing judge had correctly considered the principles of proportionality and deterrence in light of the officer's role in undermining public confidence in law enforcement. The Crown argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the severity of the crimes committed, particularly given the officer's position of trust and the potential for his actions to corrupt the judicial process. The court had to determine if the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether a higher penalty was warranted to uphold the integrity of the legal system.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the sentence imposed by the lower court did not sufficiently account for the serious nature of the offences and their broader implications. The court emphasised the need for sentences that not only punish the offender but also serve as a deterrent to others in similar positions of authority. By considering the principles of justice and the public interest, the High Court determined that the original sentence was inadequate and increased the punishment to reflect the gravity of the officer's misconduct. The court's decision underscored the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal system and the necessity of appropriate penalties for those who abuse their positions of trust.

Orders