R v Roussakis - [2021] ACTSC 19

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Roussakis
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 19
Hearing Date:	15 December 2020
Decision Date:	9 February 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [54]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – aiding
and abetting an officer of corporation to give false or misleading
information – recklessness as to the commission of the offence – offending occurred over a substantial period of time – low risk of reoffending – loss and damage caused to corporation – extent of the loss cannot be quantified – automatic disqualification from managing a corporation – good behaviour order – pecuniary
penalty
Legislation Cited:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 9, 206B, 1309 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 17A, 20 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 11.2 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 332, 347
Cases Cited:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Couper [2013] VSCA 72; 41 VR 128 Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith and De Alwis [2016] VCC 705 R v Falconer [2018] NSWSC 1765 R v Raines [2017] NSWDC 217; 25 DCLR(NSW) 239 R v Watt [2021] ACTSC 20
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Leon Roussakis (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
T Hickey (Crown)
D Berents (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)
William O’Brien & Ross Hudson Solicitors (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 46 of 2019
MOSSOP J:
Introduction

1. The offender, Leon Roussakis, pleaded guilty to one count of aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring an officer of a corporation to give information or authorise or permit the giving of information to a director of the corporation, which related to the affairs
of the corporation and that was, to the officer’s knowledge, false or misleading in a
material particular or omitted from it, a matter or thing which rendered the information misleading in a material respect. The offence occurred between 10 November 2014 and 19 October 2015. The conduct was a contravention of s 1309(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by virtue of s 11.2(1) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth). The maximum
penalty for this offence is five years’ imprisonment, a fine of $34,000 or both.
2. The person whose offending the offender aided or abetted is Edward Watt, who is being dealt with at the same time: see R v Watt [2021] ACTSC 20.

Facts
3.	The offender admitted the contents of the Agreed Statement of Facts included in the Crown Tender Bundle.
4.	Between November 2014 and October 2015 Mr Roussakis’ co-offender, Mr Watt, was
the General Manager of Canberra Concrete Recyclers Pty Ltd (CCR). His role was such that he was an officer of the corporation within the extended meaning of that term in s 9 of the Corporations Act.
5.	CCR is a waste construction materials recycler. It operates a site in Pialligo where material recycling activities are undertaken, near one end of the Canberra airport. It recycles mixed building demolition materials such as concrete, bricks, tiles, timber,…

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 Roussakis

Details

AGLC: R v Roussakis [2021] ACTSC 19
Case: [2021] ACTSC 19
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Leon Roussakis was charged with aiding, abetting, counselling, or procuring an officer of a corporation to give information or authorise or permit the giving of information to a director of the corporation, which related to the affairs of the corporation and was false or misleading in a material particular, or omitted from it, a matter or thing which rendered the information misleading in a material respect. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for the offence committed by Roussakis. The court considered various factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the course of conduct, the loss or damage resulting from the offence, the offender's character, age, antecedents, and background, contrition/reparation, plea of guilty, cooperation with law enforcement, specific deterrence, prospects of rehabilitation, general deterrence, effect on family, and other matters.

The court found that Roussakis' conduct was dishonest, and he was prepared to aid and abet Mr. Watt, intending him to commit an offence and reckless as to the particular offence committed. The court also found that Roussakis' liability was that of an aider and abettor, which made his conduct substantially less objectively serious than that of Mr. Watt. The court concluded that the threshold in s 17A of the Crimes Act had not been passed, and the matter could be dealt with by requiring Roussakis to be of good behaviour for a period of three years and pay a pecuniary penalty of $22,000. The court also ordered that Roussakis be disqualified from managing corporations for a period of five years pursuant to s 206B of the Corporations Act.

The offender is convicted, and it is ordered that he be released upon giving security without sureties by recognizance that he will comply with the following conditions: (a) that he will be of good behaviour for a period of three years; and (b) that he will pay to the Commonwealth a pecuniary penalty of $22,000 on or before 8 February 2022.

Orders