Legal Research
Cases
R v Patison

R v Patison

Case [2003] NSWCCA 171 15 July 2003

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Bribery

Perverting the Course of Justice

Corruption

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

Reported Decision:
143 A Crim R 118

New South Wales

Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: R v Patison [2003] NSWCCA 171

HEARING DATE(S): 5 May 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 July 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Giles JA at 1; Bell J at 66; Carruthers AJ at 67

DECISION: Appeal dismissed.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985
Police Service Act 1900

CASES CITED: Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321
King (1985) 82 Cr App R
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v AEM [2002] NSWCCA 58
R v Barton (2001) 121 A Crim R 185
R v Hammoud (2000) 118 A Crim R 66
R v Hilder (CCA, 13 May 1993, unreported)
R v Irwin [1999] NSWCA 361
R v Kear (1978) 2 CLJ 42
R v Nomchong (CCA, 10 April 1997, unreported)
R v Pangallo (1991) 56 A Crim R 441
R v Thomson; R v Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Winchester v The Queen (1992) 58 A Crim R 345

PARTIES :
R v David Phillip Patison

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60512/02

COUNSEL: P G Ingram - Crown
S J Odgers SC - Respondent

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor - Crown
Oates & Smith - Respondent

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): SC 70086/02

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Dunford J

CCA 60512/02
SC 70086/02

GILES JA
BELL J
CARRUTHERS AJ
Tuesday 15 July 2003

R v PATISON

Judgment

1 GILES JA: This is an appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions, pursuant to s 5D of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, against sentences pronounced by Dunford J upon David Phillip Patison, on the ground that the sentences are manifestly inadequate.

The offences

2 On 10 December 2002 the respondent pleaded guilty to an indictment containing ten counts. They were as follows.

Count 1 : On 11 May 2000 at Manly in the State of New South Wales, during the execution of a search warrant, did fail to seize all of the prohibited drugs located during the execution of the search warrant, with intent to pervert the course of justice.

This was an offence contrary to s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900. The maximum penalty was imprisonment for a term of fourteen years.

Count 2 : On 18 May 2000 at Belrose in the State of New South Wales, being a member of the New South Wales Police Service, did solicit a bribe namely $10,000 from Darren Fede.

This was an offence contrary to s 200(1) of the Police Service Act 1900. The maximum penalty was imprisonment for a term of seven years or a fine of $22,000 or both.

Count 3 : On 23 May 2000 at Manly in the State of New South Wales, during the execution of a search warrant, did fail to seize all of the prohibited drugs located during the execution of the search warrant, with…

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 [2003] NSWCCA 171
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 171
Decision Date: 15 July 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Patison, the Crown appealed against the sentence imposed by Dunford J, contending that it was manifestly inadequate. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge had erred in imposing sentences in relation to certain counts and in ordering the sentences to be served concurrently. The appeal was dismissed by the Court. The Court found that the appellant had not clearly demonstrated that the sentencing judge had erred in imposing the sentences, as the sentences were within the range available to the judge’s discretion. The Court also found that the sentencing judge had not erred in ordering the sentences to be served concurrently, as he had appropriately applied the principles of cumulation, concurrence, and totality. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was within his discretionary range and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Orders