Legal Research
Cases
R v O’Dwyer

R v O’Dwyer

Case [2024] NSWDC 11 2 February 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

District Court

New South Wales

Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation: R v O’DWYER [2024] NSWDC 11
Hearing dates: 07 December 2023 and 12 December 2023
Date of orders: 02 February 2024
Decision date: 02 February 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Anderson SC DCJ
Decision:
Aggregate sentence of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months

Catchwords:
CRIME – sentencing – fraud – objective seriousness

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 192E(1)(b)
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 3A, s 5, s 21A(2), s 21A(2)(m), 21A(2)(n), 21A(3), 21A(3)(a), 21A(3)(e), 21A(3)(f), 21A(3)(g), 21A(3)(h), 21A(3)(i), s 53A

Cases Cited:
R v Ho (1989) 39 A Crim R 145
R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430
R v Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450
R v Woodman [2001] NSWCCA 310
R v Finnie [2002] NSWCCA 533 R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49
R v Pont [2000] NSWCCA 419
R v Mears (1991) 53 A Crim R 141
R v Hill [2004] NSWCCA 257
R v Murtaza [2001] NSWCCA 336
Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260
R v El-Rashid (unrep, 7/4/95, NSWCCA)
Ralan St Leonards v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2014] FCA 431
Bugmy v the Queen [2013] HCA 37
DS v R; DM v R [2022] NSWCCA 156
R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369
R v Palu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174
Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18
Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285
Apulu v R [2022] NSWCCA 244
Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114
Hartman v R [2011] NSWCCA 261

Texts Cited:
Nil

Category: Sentence
Parties: William O’Dwyer (Offender)
Commonwealth Director for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms D New (Crown)
Mr G Brady SC, with Ms Ghabrial and Mr Deppeler (Offender)
Solicitors:
Commonwealth Director for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Michael Ayache – One Group Legal (Offender)

File Number(s): 2023/205738
Publication restriction:
(1) Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), the parts of these reasons for judgment which are marked as redacted on the file copy of the judgment initialled by Anderson SC are not to be published (other than to the parties and their legal representatives) until further order of the Court.
(2) Order (1) is made on the ground specified in s 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(e) of the Act.

JUDGMENT

The offender is before the Court after pleading guilty to six counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception, contrary to s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The offender entered this plea of guilty in the Local Court on 22 August 2023 and maintained his plea before me. He is entitled to a discount of 25% for the utilitarian value of the timing of entry of guilty plea and I have taken that into account in setting his sentences.
The maximum punishment for an offence committed pursuant to s 192E(1)(b) is 10 years’ imprisonment. There is no standard non-parole period.
It is worth stating at the outset that an offence under…

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 O’Dwyer

Details

AGLC: R v O’Dwyer [2024] NSWDC 11
Case: [2024] NSWDC 11
Decision Date: 02 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v O’Dwyer involved the defendant, O’Dwyer, who was convicted of various fraud-related offences. O’Dwyer had been involved in a sophisticated scheme that defrauded numerous individuals out of significant sums of money. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the primary focus was on determining an appropriate sentence for the crimes committed.

The central legal issues before the court were the assessment of the objective seriousness of O’Dwyer's crimes and the formulation of an aggregate sentence that appropriately reflected these factors. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the fraud, the impact on the victims, and the need for deterrence and denunciation in sentencing. The defence argued for a lesser sentence citing personal circumstances, while the prosecution urged a more stringent penalty to reflect the gravity of the offences.

The court, after thorough deliberation, concluded that the crimes were of significant objective seriousness given the scale of the fraud and the number of victims affected. The court noted that the offences not only caused substantial financial harm but also eroded public trust in financial systems. The judge determined that an aggregate sentence was appropriate, taking into account the cumulative effect of the crimes. The final sentence was set at 4 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months, ensuring that the sentence served both punitive and deterrent purposes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Aggregate sentence of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v O’Dwyer [2024] NSWDC 11

Most Recent Citation

O'Dwyer v The King [2025] NSWCCA 95

Cases citing this decision · 1 of 1 shown

O'Dwyer v The King
[2025] NSWCCA 95

…Number(s): 2023/00205738 Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: District Court Jurisdiction: NSW Citation: [2024] NSWDC 11 Date of Decision: 02 February 2024 Before: Anderson SC DCJ File Number(s): 2023/205738…

View all 1 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 16 of 16 shown

Apulu v R
[2022] NSWCCA 244

…CA 156 R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369 R v Palu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174 Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18 Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 Apulu v R [2022] NSWCCA 244 Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114 Hartman v R [2011] NSWCCA 261 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Sentence Parties: William O’Dwyer (Offender) Commonwealth Director for P…
DS v R; DM v R
[2022] NSWCCA 156 Para 108

…ective seriousness might be reduced substantially, indicative in the conduct not being planned, premeditated nor without malice. 15. DS v R; DM v R [2022] NSWCCA 156 at [96].…
Lloyd v R
[2022] NSWCCA 18 Para 110

…inion of a professional psychiatrist, simply because they have not been cross-examined. 16. (2001) 127 A Crim R 369. 17. (2002) 134 A Crim R 174. 18. [2022] NSWCCA 18 at [43]-[47]. 19. [2012] NSWCCA 285 at [88].…
Aslan v R
[2014] NSWCCA 114

…A Crim R 369 R v Palu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174 Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18 Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 Apulu v R [2022] NSWCCA 244 Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114 Hartman v R [2011] NSWCCA 261 Texts Cited: Nil Category: Sentence Parties: William O’Dwyer (Offender) Commonwealth Director for Public Prosecutions (Crown) R…
Ralan St Leonards Pty Ltd v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union
[2014] FCA 431 Para 90

…ers which the offender obtained against the CFMEU on 6 May 2014. I will refer to this background as the ‘St Leonards development issues.’ 13. [2014] FCA 431.…
Bugmy v The Queen
[2013] HCA 37 Para 107

…n a person throughout life”, and “may compromise the person’s capacity to mature and learn from experience”. [14] 14. Bugmy v the Queen [2013] HCA 37 at [43].…
Devaney v R
[2012] NSWCCA 285 Para 110

…t, simply because they have not been cross-examined. 16. (2001) 127 A Crim R 369. 17. (2002) 134 A Crim R 174. 18. [2022] NSWCCA 18 at [43]-[47]. 19. [2012] NSWCCA 285 at [88].…
Hartman v R
[2011] NSWCCA 261 Para 115

…ficulty accepting that broad proposition but the problem with Dr Lianos’s conclusions is that it flies in the face of the objective evidence. 22. [2011] NSWCCA 261.…
Stevens v R
[2009] NSWCCA 260 Para 37

…CCA 310. 5. [2002] NSWCCA 533. 6. [2008] NSWCCA 49. 7. [2000] NSWCCA 419. 8. (1991) 53 A Crim R 141. 9. [2004] NSWCCA 257. 10. [2001] NSWCCA 336. 11. [2009] NSWCCA 260. 12. (unrep, 7/4/95, NSWCCA).…
R v Todorovic
[2008] NSWCCA 49 Para 37

…of objective seriousness for offences of this nature: 2. (1989) 45 A Crim R 430. 3. [2004] NSWCCA 450. 4. [2001] NSWCCA 310. 5. [2002] NSWCCA 533. 6. [2008] NSWCCA 49. 7. [2000] NSWCCA 419. 8. (1991) 53 A Crim R 141. 9. [2004] NSWCCA 257. 10. [2001] NSWCCA 336. 11. [2009] NSWCCA 260. 12. (unrep, 7/4/95, NSWCCA).…
R v Mungomery
[2004] NSWCCA 450 Para 37

…that the following considerations are relevant to the assessment of objective seriousness for offences of this nature: 2. (1989) 45 A Crim R 430. 3. [2004] NSWCCA 450. 4. [2001] NSWCCA 310. 5. [2002] NSWCCA 533. 6. [2008] NSWCCA 49. 7. [2000] NSWCCA 419. 8. (1991) 53 A Crim R 141. 9. [2004] NSWCCA 257. 10. [2001] N…
R v Hill
[2004] NSWCCA 257 Para 37

…rim R 430. 3. [2004] NSWCCA 450. 4. [2001] NSWCCA 310. 5. [2002] NSWCCA 533. 6. [2008] NSWCCA 49. 7. [2000] NSWCCA 419. 8. (1991) 53 A Crim R 141. 9. [2004] NSWCCA 257. 10. [2001] NSWCCA 336. 11. [2009] NSWCCA 260. 12. (unrep, 7/4/95, NSWCCA).…
R v Finnie
[2002] NSWCCA 533 Para 37

…ant to the assessment of objective seriousness for offences of this nature: 2. (1989) 45 A Crim R 430. 3. [2004] NSWCCA 450. 4. [2001] NSWCCA 310. 5. [2002] NSWCCA 533. 6. [2008] NSWCCA 49. 7. [2000] NSWCCA 419. 8. (1991) 53 A Crim R 141. 9. [2004] NSWCCA 257. 10. [2001] NSWCCA 336. 11. [2009] NSWCCA 260. 12. (unrep…
R v Murtaza
[2001] NSWCCA 336 Para 37

…WCCA 450. 4. [2001] NSWCCA 310. 5. [2002] NSWCCA 533. 6. [2008] NSWCCA 49. 7. [2000] NSWCCA 419. 8. (1991) 53 A Crim R 141. 9. [2004] NSWCCA 257. 10. [2001] NSWCCA 336. 11. [2009] NSWCCA 260. 12. (unrep, 7/4/95, NSWCCA).…
R v Woodman
[2001] NSWCCA 310 Para 37

…nsiderations are relevant to the assessment of objective seriousness for offences of this nature: 2. (1989) 45 A Crim R 430. 3. [2004] NSWCCA 450. 4. [2001] NSWCCA 310. 5. [2002] NSWCCA 533. 6. [2008] NSWCCA 49. 7. [2000] NSWCCA 419. 8. (1991) 53 A Crim R 141. 9. [2004] NSWCCA 257. 10. [2001] NSWCCA 336. 11. [2009]…
R v Pont
[2000] NSWCCA 419 Para 37

…ess for offences of this nature: 2. (1989) 45 A Crim R 430. 3. [2004] NSWCCA 450. 4. [2001] NSWCCA 310. 5. [2002] NSWCCA 533. 6. [2008] NSWCCA 49. 7. [2000] NSWCCA 419. 8. (1991) 53 A Crim R 141. 9. [2004] NSWCCA 257. 10. [2001] NSWCCA 336. 11. [2009] NSWCCA 260. 12. (unrep, 7/4/95, NSWCCA).…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
21, 21A(2)(n), 21A(3), 21A(3)(a), 21A(3)... 6 mentions
Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)
192E(1)(b) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW)
1 mention

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v O’DWYER [2024] NSWDC 11
Hearing dates:	07 December 2023 and 12 December 2023
Date of orders:	02 February 2024
Decision date:	02 February 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Anderson SC DCJ
Decision:	Aggregate sentence of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years and 4 months
Catchwords:	CRIME – sentencing – fraud – objective seriousness
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 192E(1)(b) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s 3A, s 5, s 21A(2), s 21A(2)(m), 21A(2)(n), 21A(3), 21A(3)(a), 21A(3)(e), 21A(3)(f), 21A(3)(g), 21A(3)(h), 21A(3)(i), s 53A
Cases Cited:	R v Ho (1989) 39 A Crim R 145 R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430 R v Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450 R v Woodman [2001] NSWCCA 310 R v Finnie [2002] NSWCCA 533 R v Todorovic [2008] NSWCCA 49 R v Pont [2000] NSWCCA 419 R v Mears (1991) 53 A Crim R 141 R v Hill [2004] NSWCCA 257 R v Murtaza [2001] NSWCCA 336 Stevens v R [2009] NSWCCA 260 R v El-Rashid (unrep, 7/4/95, NSWCCA) Ralan St Leonards v Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2014] FCA 431 Bugmy v the Queen [2013] HCA 37 DS v R; DM v R [2022] NSWCCA 156 R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369 R v Palu (2002) 134 A Crim R 174 Lloyd v R [2022] NSWCCA 18 Devaney v R [2012] NSWCCA 285 Apulu v R [2022] NSWCCA 244 Aslan v R [2014] NSWCCA 114 Hartman v R [2011] NSWCCA 261
Texts Cited:	Nil
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	William O’Dwyer (Offender) Commonwealth Director for Public Prosecutions (Crown)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms D New (Crown) Mr G Brady SC, with Ms Ghabrial and Mr Deppeler (Offender) Solicitors: Commonwealth Director for Public Prosecutions (Crown) Michael Ayache – One Group Legal (Offender)
File Number(s):	2023/205738
Publication restriction:	(1) Pursuant to s 7 of the Court Suppression and Non-publication Orders Act 2010 (NSW), the parts of these reasons for judgment which are marked as redacted on the file copy of the judgment initialled by Anderson SC are not to be published (other than to the parties and their legal representatives) until further order of the Court. (2) Order (1) is made on the ground specified in s 8(1)(c) and 8(1)(e) of the Act.