R v McInnes

Case [2022] NSWDC 723

District Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v McInnes [2022] NSWDC 723
Hearing dates: 21 November 2022, 5 December 2022
Decision date: 05 December 2022
Jurisdiction:Criminal
Before: Colefax SC DCJ
Decision:

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years

Catchwords:

CRIME - SENTENCE - Dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 192E(1)(b), s 178(B)(1).

Category:Sentence
Parties:

Rex (Crown)

Paul Bruce McInnes (Offender)
Representation:

Mr Bucksath (DPP)

Mr Fordham (Counsel for the offender)
File Number(s): 2021/00277621
Publication restriction: Nil

  1. Paul Bruce McInnes, you appear for sentence today in relation to two principal offences, each being dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception. 

  2. Each offence involves the contravention of section 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).

  3. The maximum penalty for each offence is imprisonment for ten years and there is no standard non‑parole period. 

  4. In addition to those two principal offences (which are respectively sequences 2 and 3) you have asked the Court to take into account one matter on a form 1, which I have certified. That matter is sequence 1. It is to be taken into account with sequence 2 and it is a matter of obtaining money by deception. That matter involves a contravention of section 178B(1) of the Crimes Act.

  5. The circumstances surrounding your offending are contained in a document entitled Statement of Agreed Facts and, for my purposes this afternoon, they can be summarised as follows. 

  6. The offending involving sequences 1, 2 and 3 were all committed whilst you were a senior employee of Rheem Australia.  You were relevantly the National Sales Manager or the General Manager, Sales. 

  7. The offending took place over an 11 year period, from August 2007 to October 2018. 

  8. The offending involved you making 53 individual fraud offences against your employer. The total amount of money that you (effectively) stole from your employer was a little over $2 million.

  9. The offending was carried out by a relatively sophisticated scheme whereby you submitted false invoices for services which were, in fact, never provided. 

  10. The scheme went undetected for so long because of: the trust that was vested in you by your employer; and the senior level within the company that you occupied. 

  11. It is agreed between you and the Crown that, of that very significant sum of money (a little over $2 million), some of it was misappropriated by you and directed in the following manner. Approximately $540,000 was used to carry out renovations to, and mortgage repayments for, your primary residence at Menai.  An amount of almost $115,000 was used as a deposit and mortgage repayments for an investment property in Queensland.  A little under $230,000 was used as a deposit and a mortgage repayments for a second investment property in Queensland.  A little over $150,000 was used to buy a luxury boat.  Almost $125,000 was used to buy a holiday home at Wiseman's Ferry.  In late December 2018, at about the time that you…

Continue reading R v McInnes

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v McInnes [2022] NSWDC 723
Case
[2022] NSWDC 723
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v McInnes, the accused, a former police officer, was charged with multiple counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The prosecution alleged that McInnes had engaged in dishonest conduct to obtain financial benefits, while the defence argued that the actions, though questionable, did not rise to the level of criminal deception.

The court was required to determine whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that McInnes had dishonestly obtained financial advantage by deception. This involved examining the nature of the deception, the intent behind it, and whether it was substantial enough to constitute a criminal offence under the relevant statute. The court also needed to weigh the circumstances and background of the accused in determining an appropriate sentence if the charges were upheld.

The court found McInnes guilty on all counts, emphasising the deliberate and repeated nature of the deception. It was noted that McInnes had abused his position of trust and authority for personal gain. The sentencing phase considered the breach of public trust, the extent of the deception, and the impact on the victims. The court ultimately sentenced McInnes to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years, with a non-parole period of 4 years, recognising the gravity of the offences but also the need for rehabilitation and deterrence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate term of imprisonment of 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years

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.