R v Rankin

Case [2006] NSWDC 183


CITATION: R v Rankin [2006] NSWDC 183
HEARING DATE(S): 27/09/06, 27/10/06
 
JUDGMENT DATE: 

2 November 2006
JURISDICTION: Criminal
JUDGMENT OF: Norrish QC DCJ
DECISION: See para 44, 45, 48, 49 and 50.
CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentence - fraud - make and use false instrument - cooperation - delay.
LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999\
Crimes Act 1900
CASES CITED: Regina v Cartwright (1989) 17 NSWLR 243
Regina v Chu (unrep, 16/10/98 NSWCCA)
DPP v El Hani [2004] NSWCCA 162
Regina v A [2004] NSWCCA 292
Regina v Sukkar [2006] NSWCCA 92
Regina v Alcorn [2006] NSWCCA 209
Regina v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
Regina v Markarian (2005) 215 ALR 213
Regina v Todd (1982) NSWLR 517
Regina v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
Regina v Pellow [2004] NSWCCA 434
Regina v Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610
Regina v Croaker [2004] NSWCCA 470
Regina v Tolley [2004] NSWCCA 165
Regina v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
Regina v JCE (2002) 120 ACR 18
PARTIES: Regina
Tanya Rankin
FILE NUMBER(S): 06/11/0269
COUNSEL: Mr Barr - Crown
Mr I Latham - Offender
SOLICITORS: Mr A Wong, DPP

SENTENCE

INTRODUCTION:

1 The prisoner, Tanya Rankin, appears today for sentence having pleaded guilty to thirteen charges of an indictment presented on 27 September 2006. Eleven of the counts on the indictment allege that she aided and abetted an offence of “make false instrument” with intent that another person would use it to induce another person to accept the instrument as genuine and to act to the prejudice of another.

2 These offences were committed between late November and 20 December 2001. They are brought pursuant to s 300(1) Crimes Act 1900 and carry a maximum penalty each of ten years imprisonment. The false instruments were made either by Michael English or Trevor Brown who are referred to below.

3 The remaining two charges allege the prisoner was an accessory before the fact to using false instruments in that the prisoner aided Neville Stumer to relevantly use the instruments described contrary to s 300(2) Crimes Act 1900 on 6 and 28 May 2002. The maximum penalty for these offences is ten years imprisonment. The charges set out in the indictment are annexure A to these remarks on sentence.

4 I am also required to take into account on a Form 1, two offences of aiding and abetting the making of a false instrument, the false instruments being Powers of Attorney created on 26 November 2001 and 3 December 2001. The relationship of these matters with the matters on the indictment is explained in the facts below.

5 The first matter on the Form 1 relates to Count 1. The second matter relates to Counts 2 and 3. All these matters relate to the one loan transaction. That is the matters on the Form 1. Given the range of matters the subject of plea and the context in which the From 1 matters are committed, the Form 1 matters do not significantly increase the…

Continue reading R v Rankin

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Rankin [2006] NSWDC 183
Case
[2006] NSWDC 183
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant was convicted of offences related to the creation and use of a false instrument in a scheme to defraud a bank. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, where the appellant appealed against his sentence. The central issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered the appellant's cooperation with authorities and the delay in bringing the case to trial when determining his sentence. The court also needed to decide whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the sentencing judge's approach to the sentencing process, particularly focusing on the weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors. The court noted that while the appellant's cooperation and the delay in prosecution were significant factors, they did not necessarily outweigh the gravity of the offences committed. The court held that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced these considerations, and the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need for a sentence to reflect the seriousness of the offence, while also taking into account any relevant mitigating factors.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appeal was dismissed with no orders regarding costs. The court reiterated the importance of considering all relevant factors in sentencing, but confirmed that the sentence in this case was appropriate given the circumstances. The final orders were made in paragraphs 44, 45, 48, 49 and 50 of the judgment, confirming the dismissal of the appeal and the upholding of the original sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

See para 44, 45, 48, 49 and 50.

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.