R v Lee

Case [2019] NSWDC 888


District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Lee [2019] NSWDC 888
Hearing dates: 17 December 2019
Decision date: 18 December 2019
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: King SC DCJ
Decision:

Convicted.
s166 matters - SEQ 004 & 006 - taken into account on sentence imposed below.
Indicative sentences:
001 - Count 1 – 1 year’s imprisonment
005 – Count 2 – 2 years’ imprisonment
007 – Count 3 – 1 year’s imprisonment
Aggregate sentence:
Pursuant to s20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 the offender is sentenced to a total term of imprisonment for 3 years to commence on 18 December 2019 and to expire on 17 December 2022.
The offender is to be released after 17 June 2021 upon entering into a recognizance in the sum of $5000 conditional that he be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months.
I make a forfeiture order in the sum of $10,350 as per the SMO handed up in court today.

Catchwords: CRIMINAL – Sentence - possess non‑native CITES/regulated specimen - official abuse public office to gain advantage - deal with proceeds of crime, money/property, $10,000 or more – s16BA offences taken into account – systemic and ongoing breach of trust - flagrant disregard for responsibilities - aggregate sentence – subjective matters
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999
Cases Cited: Macarian v The Queen (2005) 215 ALR 213.
Morgan v R (2007) NSWCCA 8
Category:Sentence
Parties: Regina
Lee, Joseph Ian
Representation:

Counsel:
Def: Mr K Ginges

  Solicitors:
CDPP: Ms H White
File Number(s): 2018/1347532

Judgment

  1. Joseph Lee appears for sentence in respect of three offences, being: Count 1, possess non‑native CITES/regulated specimen, contrary to s 303GN(2) of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act (EPBC Act). The maximum penalty for that offence is five years’ imprisonment and/or a fine of 1,000 penalty units.

  2. Count 2 is that between 11 October 2016 and 28 February 2018, official abuse public office to gain advantage contrary to s 142.2(1)(a)(iii) of the Criminal Code (Cth). The maximum penalty for such an offence is five years’ imprisonment.

  3. Count 3 is that on or about 12 November 2018, the offender did deal with proceeds of crime, money/property, $10,000 or more, contrary to s 400.6(1) of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty available is imprisonment for ten years and/or a fine of 600 penalty units.

  4. When being sentenced in respect of those three matters, the offender asks the Court to take into account two further matters contained on a schedule pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914(Cth). Those are:

  5. Sequence 4, between 2 September 2018 and 5 November 2018, possess non‑native CITES/regulated specimen, contrary to the same section as referred to in relation to Count 1.

  6. Sequence 6, on or about 25 August 2017, official abuse of public office to gain advantage, contrary to the same section as referred to before in relation to Count…

Continue reading R v Lee

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Lee [2019] NSWDC 888
Case
[2019] NSWDC 888
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Lee, faced charges in the Federal Court of Australia concerning the possession of a non-native specimen regulated under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), as well as charges related to official misconduct and dealing with the proceeds of crime. The case arose from a systemic and ongoing breach of trust by Lee, who was in a position of public office, and his flagrant disregard for his responsibilities.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing for each charge, the consideration of prior offences, and the application of the aggregate sentencing principles. Specifically, the court needed to determine how to balance the severity of Lee's crimes, the need for deterrence, and the principles of proportionality and rehabilitation.

In its reasoning, the court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the offender's prior criminal history, and the potential impact of the crimes on public trust in public officials. The court found that Lee's actions constituted a significant breach of the public's trust, necessitating a strong punitive response. Each of the individual charges warranted a specific term of imprisonment, with the total sentence calculated to reflect the aggregate criminality while ensuring fairness and proportionality. The court also took into account the defendant's previous offences under s16BA of the relevant legislation, which contributed to the overall severity of the sentence. The final order was for a total imprisonment term of three years, with specific conditions for early release and a forfeiture order for the sum of $10,350.

Orders

Orders of the court

Convicted.

s166 matters - SEQ 004 & 006 - taken into account on sentence imposed below.

Indicative sentences:

001 - Count 1 – 1 year’s imprisonment

005 – Count 2 – 2 years’ imprisonment

007 – Count 3 – 1 year’s imprisonment

Aggregate sentence:

Pursuant to s20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 the offender is sentenced to a total term of imprisonment for 3 years to commence on 18 December 2019 and to expire on 17 December 2022.

The offender is to be released after 17 June 2021 upon entering into a recognizance in the sum of $5000 conditional that he be of good behaviour for a period of 18 months.

I make a forfeiture order in the sum of $10,350 as per the SMO handed up in court today.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.