R v Newman - [2014] NSWLC 22

Local Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Newman [2014] NSWLC 22
Hearing dates: 23 October 2014, 25 November 2014
Decision date: 25 November 2014
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: O'Sullivan LCM
Decision:
The offence is proved and the defendant is discharged on the condition that she enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of two years pursuant to s 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Catchwords: SENTENCING - unathorised access to restricted data - recording a conviction - low objective seriousness - guilty plea - no prior - good character - community concern
Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 10, 21A, 22
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 308H, 556A
Criminal Code (Cth), s 478.1(1)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19B
Cases Cited: BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159
Church v R [2012] NSWCCA 149
Hoffenberg v The District Court of New South Wales 2010 NSWCA 142
MB v R [2013] NSWCCA 254
R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; 195 A Crim R 1
R v Ingrassia (1997) 41 NSWLR 447 at 449
R v Lo [2003] NSWCCA 313
R v Mauger [2012] NSWCCA 51
R v Nguyen [2002] NSWCCA 183
R v Thomson; R v Houlten [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Applicant Crown)
F Newman (Defendant)
Representation: Sergeant Assaad (Applicant Crown)
Payne SC (Defendant)

File Number(s): 2014/229664
Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT

Ms Newman has been charged under s 308H(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). An offence against this section is a summary offence which carries a maximum penalty of 2 years imprisonment.
Ms Newman pleaded guilty.

The Facts

The following account is taken from the NSW Police Fact Sheet supplemented by the outline of written submissions provided by the defence counsel. I understand that there is no challenge to those facts that are supplementary to the facts in the Police Fact sheet.
At the time of the offence Ms Newman was a 20 year old full-time university student working casually at a private tertiary college, the Whitehouse Institute ("the Institute"). She was working in the library. She had heard more senior staff members allege that a private scholarship had been granted by the Institute to the daughter of the Prime Minister. She understood that the Institute had also recently applied for and received Federal Government accreditation and funding for a Masters program.
A more senior staff member of the Institute had informed the members of the media of the private scholarship but had been advised that the story would not be run without evidence.
Ms Newman, a junior part-time staff member, was told by more senior staff where the evidence of the private scholarship could be located in the Institute computer system and how to obtain it. Those staff members encouraged Ms Newman to use another staff member’s login details, without her permission, to access information confirming that the student had been awarded a private scholarship by the Institute.
Ms Newman…

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 Newman

Details

AGLC: R v Newman [2014] NSWLC 22
Case: [2014] NSWLC 22
Decision Date: 25 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Newman, was charged with unauthorised access to restricted data, an offence under the Commonwealth Criminal Code. The case was heard in the District Court of New South Wales. The crux of the matter was whether the defendant's actions, which involved accessing restricted data without authorisation, warranted a conviction and, if so, what the appropriate sentence should be.

The court had to determine whether the defendant's actions constituted a serious breach of privacy or security and if the objective seriousness of the offence warranted a conviction. Additionally, the court needed to consider the defendant's early guilty plea, her lack of prior convictions, and her generally good character. The court was also required to weigh the public interest in holding the defendant accountable against the community's concerns about the misuse of restricted data.

The court found that the defendant's actions, while unauthorised, did not result in significant harm or potential harm to any individual or organisation. Given the low objective seriousness of the offence, the court acknowledged the defendant's early guilty plea, her lack of prior convictions, and her good character as mitigating factors. The court was also mindful of the community's concern about the misuse of restricted data but concluded that a conviction was not necessary to address the public interest in this instance. The court sentenced the defendant to a good behaviour bond for two years, considering the overall circumstances of the case.

The final orders of the court were that the offence was proved, and the defendant was discharged on the condition that she enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of two years pursuant to section 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

Orders

Orders of the court

The offence is proved and the defendant is discharged on the condition that she enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of two years pursuant to s 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Newman [2014] NSWLC 22
Hearing dates:	23 October 2014, 25 November 2014
Decision date:	25 November 2014
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	O'Sullivan LCM
Decision:	The offence is proved and the defendant is discharged on the condition that she enter into a good behaviour bond for a period of two years pursuant to s 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999.
Catchwords:	SENTENCING - unathorised access to restricted data - recording a conviction - low objective seriousness - guilty plea - no prior - good character - community concern
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 3A, 10, 21A, 22 Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 308H, 556A Criminal Code (Cth), s 478.1(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19B
Cases Cited:	BP v R [2010] NSWCCA 159 Church v R [2012] NSWCCA 149 Hoffenberg v The District Court of New South Wales 2010 NSWCA 142 MB v R [2013] NSWCCA 254 R v Borkowski [2009] NSWCCA 102; 195 A Crim R 1 R v Ingrassia (1997) 41 NSWLR 447 at 449 R v Lo [2003] NSWCCA 313 R v Mauger [2012] NSWCCA 51 R v Nguyen [2002] NSWCCA 183 R v Thomson; R v Houlten [2000] NSWCCA 309; 49 NSWLR 383
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Applicant Crown) F Newman (Defendant)
Representation:	Sergeant Assaad (Applicant Crown) Payne SC (Defendant)
File Number(s):	2014/229664
Publication restriction:	Nil