R v Patison - [2002] NSWSC 1248

CITATION: R v Patison [2002] NSWSC 1248

CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law Division
Criminal

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70086/02

HEARING DATE(S): 10 December 2002

JUDGMENT DATE: 20 December 2002

PARTIES :

David Phillip Patison

JUDGMENT OF: Dunford J

COUNSEL : PE Barrett (Crown)
RW Hood (Patison)

SOLICITORS: SE O'Connor (Solicitor for Public Prosecutions)
Oates & Smith Solicitors (Patison)

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

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, ss 21A, 32, 44
Crimes Act 1900, ss 249B, 319
Police Service Act 1990, ss 7, 200
Drug Misuse & Trafficking Act 1985, ss 25 & 32

CASES CITED: R v Pangallo (1991) 56 A Crim R 441
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57, 194 CLR 610
R v Gardiner [2002] NSWCCA 209
R v Dougan (NSWCCA - 2 July 1987)
R v Nomchong (NSWCCA - 13 May 1993)
R v Hilder (NSWCCA - 13 May 1993)
R v Taouk (1993) 65 A Crim R 387
R v Irwin [1999] NSWCA 361
R v Simpson (2001) NSWLR 704
R v Capar [2002] NSWCCA 517

DECISION: See para 23.

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

DUNFORD J

Friday, 20 DECEMBER 2002
70086/02 David Phillip PATISON

SENTENCE

1 His Honour: The prisoner, David Phillip Patison, stands for sentence having pleaded guilty to three counts of act with intent to pervert the course of justice, two counts of solicit corrupt reward, three counts of solicit bribe and two counts of supply prohibited drug. He has also asked that a number of other matters be taken into account in accordance with s 32 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, namely four counts of solicit bribe, three counts of give bribe to member of police force, two counts of solicit corrupt reward, and also steal from dwelling, larceny, hinder investigation of serious offence, receive corrupt reward and receive bribe.

2 The facts are set out in the Statement of Agreed Facts (Ex C) and there is no need to repeat them in detail. In summary they disclose a persistent and organised course of police corruption over almost a whole year, manifested in a number of different ways, including failing to seize or disclose all of the prohibited drugs or cash located during the execution of search warrants, soliciting and receiving bribes from offenders, sharing such bribes with other police officers, reducing the amount of drugs discovered so that offenders who had paid the bribes were charged with lesser offences, with the result that they were granted bail and were liable to lesser penalties, and not giving the full facts subsequently to the court, arranging contact between two drug dealers to facilitate their trafficking, arranging for a drug dealer to obtain bail despite a long criminal record in return for payment of $10,000, and allowing a known drug dealer to continue supplying heroin in return for weekly payments. These activities were based at Manly Police Station where the prisoner was serving…

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 Patison

Details

AGLC: R v Patison [2002] NSWSC 1248
Case: [2002] NSWSC 1248
Decision Date: 20 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Patison, the defendant, an individual involved in police corruption, faced sentencing following a series of criminal activities, including bribery and perverting the course of justice. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant's actions, which involved serious breaches of public trust and integrity. The defendant had been found guilty of multiple charges related to corrupt activities within the police force, highlighting the necessity for a sentence that would serve as a deterrent to others in similar positions.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in light of the gravity of the defendant's crimes. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, the defendant's culpability, and the need for general and specific deterrence. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the impact of the defendant's actions on the community and the necessity to uphold the integrity of the justice system. The defendant's prior unblemished record and expressions of remorse were also considered as mitigating factors.

The court, in delivering its judgment, emphasised the severity of the crimes committed, which had undermined public confidence in law enforcement. It noted that the defendant's actions had caused significant harm to the community by corrupting the very institution meant to protect and serve it. The court took into account the need for a sentence that would reflect the seriousness of the offences and deter others from engaging in similar conduct. Ultimately, the court imposed a custodial sentence, recognising the defendant's remorse but prioritising the need for deterrence and denunciation. The sentence was structured to ensure that the defendant would face significant consequences for their actions, thereby upholding the principles of justice and public trust.

Orders