Medium Neutral Citation: R v Issakidis [2018] NSWSC 378
Hearing dates: 11 December 2017
Date of orders: 29 March 2018
Decision date: 29 March 2018
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Harrison J
Decision:
(1) For committing count 1 on the indictment, being an offence contrary to s 135.4(5) of the Criminal Code, sentenced to imprisonment for 7 years commencing on 16 October 2017 and expiring on 15 October 2024.
(2) For committing count 2 on the indictment, being an offence contrary to s 11.5(1) and s 400.3(1) of the Criminal Code, sentenced to imprisonment for 8 years and 3 months commencing on 16 October 2019 and expiring on 15 January 2028.
(3) Pursuant to s 19AB(1) of the Crimes Act 1914, fix a single non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months expiring on 15 April 2025.

Catchwords:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – conspiracy to dishonestly cause a loss or risk of loss to the Commonwealth – conspiracy to deal with property of a value of $1M or more believing it to be the proceeds of crime – where offender part of a conspiracy to make false depreciation claims in company tax returns – where loss to the Commonwealth exceeded $100M – where intended loss or risk of loss to the Commonwealth amounted to approximately $135M – where offender part of a conspiracy to launder the proceeds of crime through offshore accounts – where offences involved intricate planning and preparation and occurred over a number of years
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – relevant factors on sentence – co-offenders – parity – where offences in the worst category – where offender motivated by greed – where strong need for deterrence – where offender has shown no contrition – where good prospects of rehabilitation – where significant delay – where hardship to offender and his wife – where offender has mental and physical health problems – where offender is of advanced age – where no relevant criminal history
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth)
Cases Cited: Dickson v R [2016] NSWCCA 105
DPP (Cth) v Goldberg (2001) 184 ALR 387; [2001] VSCA 107
DPP (Cth) v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1; [2011] VSCA 145
DPP (Cth) v Pratten (No 2) (2017) 94 NSWLR 194; [2017] NSWCCA 42
Green v The Queen; Quinn v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49
Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45
R v Anthony James Dickson (No 18) [2015] NSWSC 268
R v Caradonna (2000) 118 A Crim R 312; [2000] NSWCCA 398
R v Huang (2007) 174 A Crim R 370; [2007] NSWCCA 259
R v Huston; R v Fox; R v Henke; ex parte Cth DPP (2011) 219 A Crim R 209; [2011] QCA 350
R v Ly (2014) 241 A Crim R 192; [2014] NSWCCA 78
R v Milne (No 6) [2010] NSWSC 1467
R v…

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 Issakidis

Details

AGLC: R v Issakidis [2018] NSWSC 378
Case: [2018] NSWSC 378
Decision Date: 29 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Issakidis, the appellant was sentenced for his involvement in a conspiracy to dishonestly cause a loss or risk of loss to the Commonwealth, specifically through false depreciation claims in company tax returns. The conspiracy resulted in a loss to the Commonwealth exceeding $100 million, with an intended loss of approximately $135 million. The appellant was also involved in laundering the proceeds of crime through offshore accounts. The case was heard and determined in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the Court involved the principles and factors relevant to sentencing in criminal law, particularly the sentencing of the appellant who was part of a sophisticated conspiracy involving significant planning and preparation over several years. The Court was required to balance various considerations, including the gravity of the offence, the appellant's motivation, the need for deterrence, his lack of contrition, and the potential for rehabilitation. The Court also needed to consider the appellant's age, health issues, and the hardship that sentencing would cause to him and his wife.

The Court held that the appellant's involvement in the conspiracy was of the highest category due to the seriousness and complexity of the offences. It was noted that the appellant was motivated by greed and showed no remorse. However, the Court acknowledged the appellant's advanced age, health problems, and the potential hardship to his wife. The Court ultimately concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary due to the need for deterrence and the gravity of the offence. It determined that a sentence of ten years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years, was appropriate.

The final orders of the Court were that the appellant be sentenced to ten years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of seven years. This decision reflects the Court's consideration of both the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case, ultimately prioritising the need for deterrence and the gravity of the appellant's criminal conduct.

Orders