R v Jasper - [2003] NSWSC 287

CITATION: R v Jasper [2003] NSWSC 287

HEARING DATE(S): 27 & 28 February 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 April 2003

JURISDICTION:
Common Law
Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

DECISION: Prisoner sentenced.

CATCHWORDS: SENTENCING - police corruption - bribery - pervert course of justice, etc

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900, ss 112, 148, 188, 249B, 319, 346
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 21A, 32
Police Service Act 1990, s 200

CASES CITED: R v Patison [2002] NSWSC 1248

PARTIES :
Matthew John Jasper (Prisoner)

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70088/02

COUNSEL: PE Barrett (Crown)
J Dailly SC (Prisoner)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Crown)
Walter Madden Jenkins (Prisoner)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
CRIMINAL

DUNFORD J

Friday, 11 APRIL 2003

70088/02 R v Matthew John JASPER
SENTENCE

1 His Honour: The prisoner Matthew John Jasper appears for sentence following pleas of guilty on two indictments.

2 On the indictment dated 13 December 2002, the prisoner pleaded guilty to all nine counts when arraigned before Barr J on 13 December 2002 and he was remanded for sentence before me. On the indictment dated 31 October 2002 containing six counts I heard submissions on 27 February 2003 and, having ruled that the facts relied on by the Crown did not constitute the offences charged in counts 3 and 4 of that indictment, the prisoner was then arraigned and pleaded guilty to counts 1, 2, 5 and 6 (the last two incorrectly referred to in the transcript (p 14) as charges (3) and (4)). In addition, I have been asked to take into account a number of additional offences pursuant to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 32.

3 Taking into account both indictments the prisoner has pleaded guilty to:

· five counts of act with intent to pervert the course of justice (Crimes Act 1900, s 319, maximum penalty 14 years)

· four counts of solicit or receive corrupt reward (Crimes Act 1900, s 249B, maximum penalty 7 years)

· one count of accessory before the fact to break enter and steal (Crimes Act 1900, ss 112, 346, maximum penalty 14 years)

· three counts of receive bribe (Police Service Act 1990, s 200, maximum penalty 7 years).

4 The seven Forms 1 which I was asked to take into account contained:

· one count of steal from dwelling (Crimes Act 1900, s 148, maximum penalty 7 years)

· eight counts of give or solicit bribe (Police Service Act 1990, s 200, maximum penalty 7 years)

· three counts of receive or give corrupt reward (Crimes Act 1900, s 249B, maximum penalty 7 years)

· one count of receiving (Crimes Act 1900, s 188, maximum penalty 10 years).

5 The facts relating to all matters are set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts (Ex. B) as to the indictment of 13 December 2002 and the document headed Chronology and Facts (Ex. C) as…

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 Jasper

Details

AGLC: R v Jasper [2003] NSWSC 287
Case: [2003] NSWSC 287
Decision Date: 11 April 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jasper, the defendant faced a serious charge of police corruption, specifically bribery, and perverting the course of justice. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, a police officer, was accused of accepting bribes from criminal figures in exchange for non-disclosure of their illicit activities. Additionally, the defendant was alleged to have obstructed justice by falsifying police reports and intimidating witnesses.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the gravity of the offences, the defendant's role as a police officer, and the impact of his actions on the community's trust in law enforcement. The legal issues revolved around the principles of sentencing for serious corruption and the need to deter similar conduct by other law enforcement officers. The court had to balance the defendant's culpability with the possibility of rehabilitation and the deterrence of future misconduct.

In delivering the judgment, the court highlighted the significant breach of public trust inherent in the defendant's actions. The court emphasised that police corruption undermines the very foundations of the justice system and erodes community confidence. Consequently, the court imposed a substantial custodial sentence, reflecting the severity of the offences and the need for general deterrence. The sentence also included a disqualification from holding any future positions of trust or authority within the community.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be imprisoned for a period of eight years, with a non-parole period of five years and three months. The defendant was also disqualified from holding any position of trust or authority for a period of ten years following his release from prison. This decision underscores the court's commitment to upholding the integrity of the justice system and maintaining public confidence in law enforcement.

Orders