R v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd - [2024] NSWSC 1000

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1000
Hearing dates: 29 July 2024
Date of orders: 14 August 2024
Decision date: 14 August 2024
Jurisdiction: Common Law - Criminal
Before: Harrison CJ at CL
Decision:
(1) Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd is convicted of sequence 3.
(2) In respect of sequence 3, I impose a fine of $3,375,000.

Catchwords:
SENTENCING – federal offences – re-sentence following successful Crown appeal to the High Court – remitted from the Court of Criminal Appeal to a single judge of the Supreme Court – resentence for sequence 3 for conspiracy to cause an offer of a bribe to a foreign official contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 70.2(1)(a)(iv) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – relevant factors on sentence – within the mid-range of objective seriousness – damage caused by corruption of public officials – exemplary past assistance given by the company to authorities – undertaking of future assistance to authorities – need for general and specific deterrence – consideration of the effect of delay in commencing the prosecution of the company – absence of evidence of the actual impact of delay

Legislation Cited:
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 23(3)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 16AC
Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW), s 5D
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 11.5, 70.2

Cases Cited:
R v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 657
R v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCCA 152
R v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2023] NSWCCA 280
R v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92; (2006) 172 A Crim R 151
The King v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd formerly known as Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd [2023] HCA 23; (2023) 97 ALJR 595

Category: Sentence
Parties: Rex (Crown)
Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
G P Craddock SC with C Brain (Crown)
B Walker SC with N Kirby (Offender)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Jones Day (Offender)

File Number(s): 2018/154158
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

HIS HONOUR: Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd (“Jacobs”), formerly known as Sinclair Knight Merz Pty Ltd (“SKM”) pleaded guilty on 3 September 2020 to three offences of conspiring to bribe a foreign public official contrary to ss 11.5(1) and 70.2(1)(a)(iv) of the Criminal Code (Cth). Jacobs was sentenced for these offences by Adamson J (as her Honour then was) on 9 June 2021: R v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2021] NSWSC 657. The Crown’s appeal against the sentences imposed by her Honour was dismissed by the Court of Criminal Appeal on 11 July 2022: R v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCCA 152. On 2 August 2023, the High Court of Australia allowed the Crown’s appeal and set aside the order of the Court of Criminal Appeal in so far as it dismissed the appeal against sentence for sequence 3. The High Court remitted the matter to that Court for redetermination…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NSWSC 1000
Decision Date: 14 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Jacobs Group (Australia) Pty Ltd, the Supreme Court of Victoria heard an appeal against sentence following a successful appeal by the Crown to the High Court. The case involved federal offences related to a sequence of bribery charges under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), specifically conspiracy to cause an offer of a bribe to a foreign official. The original sentence had been quashed by the High Court, and the case was remitted to the Supreme Court for re-sentencing.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing range for the offence, given the objective seriousness of the crime, the damage caused by the corruption, and the mitigating factors presented by the company. The court considered the company's exemplary past assistance to authorities, its commitment to future cooperation, and the necessity for both general and specific deterrence. The court also needed to weigh the effect of the delay in commencing the prosecution, although it was noted that there was no evidence of the actual impact of the delay on the proceedings.

The court, after detailed consideration of the relevant factors, determined that the mid-range of the objective seriousness was appropriate for the offence. The court found that the company's past assistance and future commitments were significant mitigating factors, but the need for deterrence remained paramount. The court imposed a sentence that reflected these considerations, ensuring that it served as a deterrent while also recognising the company's cooperation. The final orders were that the company be re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment with specific conditions reflecting the terms of the original sentence, adjusted for the time already served.

The court concluded by noting that the re-sentencing was designed to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and the recognition of the company's efforts to assist the authorities. The sentence imposed aimed to address the corruption of public officials while also considering the broader implications of the case for future compliance and cooperation.

Orders