R v Salter - [2017] VSC 698

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0189

THE QUEEN

DARREL SALTER

---

JUDGE:	JOHN DIXON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	28 September 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 November 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Salter
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 698

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Conspiracy to defraud the State of Victoria – Giving secret commissions – Offences occurred over four year period – Plea of guilty - Undertaking to give evidence against co-offenders – Other mitigating circumstances – Total effective sentence 4 years and 5 months with a minimum of 3 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr K Armstrong with Mr A Sharp	John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms D Price	Sally Wilson Legal

HIS HONOUR:

Darrel Salter, on 19 June 2017 you pleaded guilty to one charge that, contrary to Common Law, between 3 September 2009 and 9 January 2014, you conspired with six others[1] to defraud the State of Victoria in the awarding of works contracts. The maximum penalty for this offence is 15 years imprisonment.[2]
[1]Barry Wells, Albert Ooi, Michael De La Torre, Andrew Ooi, Andrew Hayes and Graham Davis; each of whom are subject to separate proceedings arising out of these events.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 320.

You also pleaded guilty to two charges of giving a secret commission contrary to s 176(2) of the Crimes Act 1958. The maximum penalty for this offence is 10 years imprisonment.[3]
[3]Crimes Act 1958, s 176(2).

The first count charged that, between 29 April 2011 and 6 August 2012, you corruptly gave a secret commission to Barry Wells, an agent for the Department of Transport, consisting of five cheques totalling $74,632. This is what is termed a rolled-up charge as it includes a number of discrete transactions.

The second count charged that, between 19 November 2013 and 9 January 2014, you corruptly gave a secret commission to Barry Wells, an agent for the Department of Transport, being cash in the sum of $6,000.

Your offending arose out of your involvement with co-conspirators Barry Wells and Albert Ooi, who were employed variously with the Victorian Government’s Department of Infrastructure (‘DOI’), Department of Transport (‘DOT’) and Public Transport Victoria (‘PTV’).[4]
[4]For convenience, throughout these reasons, I will use abbreviations and initials when referring to corporate entities and Government departments.

The charges arose from an investigation named ‘Operation Fitzroy’ by the Independent Broad-Based Anti-corruption Commission (‘IBAC’) into allegations of corrupt activities in procurement in the Victorian Government’s Transport departments. The facts and circumstances on which you are being sentenced were described in depth in the prosecution opening on plea. I incorporate that document into these reasons by reference and direct that a copy of it be retained on the court file. You admitted the relevant facts set out by the prosecution in that document. What I now say is by way of…

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 Salter

Details

AGLC: R v Salter [2017] VSC 698
Case: [2017] VSC 698
Decision Date: 21 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Salter, was charged with conspiracy to defraud the State of Victoria by giving secret commissions. The offences spanned over a four-year period. Salter entered a guilty plea and agreed to provide evidence against his co-offenders, along with other mitigating circumstances. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for Salter, considering the nature and extent of his involvement, the duration of the offences, his plea of guilty, and his undertaking to assist the prosecution. The court also had to weigh the mitigating factors presented.

In sentencing Salter, the court recognised the seriousness of the offence and the duration over which it occurred. However, it also took into account Salter's guilty plea, his commitment to provide evidence against his co-conspirators, and other mitigating factors. The court determined that a total effective sentence of four years and five months, with a non-parole period of three years, was appropriate. The sentence reflected both the gravity of the crimes and the mitigating factors presented.

The final orders of the court were that Salter was to serve a total effective sentence of four years and five months, with a non-parole period of three years. This sentence was intended to reflect the seriousness of the offences while also acknowledging the mitigating factors and Salter's cooperation with the prosecution.

Orders