R v Salter
[2017] VSC 698
•21 November 2017
| IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA | Not Restricted |
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2016 0189
| THE QUEEN |
| v |
| 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 a summary.
The nature of the conspiracy orchestrated by Wells and Ooi is outlined in that document, and in my earlier reasons for sentence in respect of Wells and Ooi.[5] In sentencing you, I will not reiterate those matters, and will direct my remarks to the particulars of your involvement.
[5]R v Wells [2017] VSC 575; R v Ooi [2017] VSC 157.
In 2006 you joined Tactile Australia Pty Ltd (‘Tactile’) as an assistant manager. Part of your role at Tactile was to be a liaison between Tactile and DOT, and it was in that context that you first met Wells and Ooi, who you have known since at least 2008. Wells wanted Tactile to work with a managed entity, Global Works Management Pty Ltd (‘GWM’), in a number of different ways, mainly by supplying goods to GWM for use in contracted projects, and, should Tactile be awarded a contract directly by DOT, by subcontracting some of that work back to GWM.
From 2008 you began providing construction expertise to GWM.
During this period of employment with Tactile, you began maintaining a spreadsheet that kept track of the work performed and corresponding money received by Tactile and GWM. As your counsel acknowledged at your plea hearing, that spreadsheet demonstrates that it was clear to you what Wells was doing. You were also aware of what Wells and Ooi were doing with GWM and Redback Civil Pty Ltd, and of the basis of their association with Grand Earthworks Pty Ltd and Global Works Civil Pty Ltd.
On 3 September 2009 you registered the company Consalter Pty Ltd (‘Consalter’). In July 2010 GWM set up the domain name ‘consalter.com.au’ and associated email address.
Consalter provided engineering consultancy services on DOT and PTV projects, the contracts for which were awarded by Wells. You worked with the entities managed by Wells and Ooi by providing engineering design services and assisting with drafting tenders and quotes. You also participated, as a contractor, in tender interviews with both Wells and Ooi without disclosing this association to DOT or PTV.
Your involvement with the conspiracy is illustrated by the following two examples.
First, in 2009 you were engaged by GWM to assist with project management of a contract for upgrading 250 bus stops in Melbourne. Correspondence between yourself, Wells, and Ooi demonstrates your involvement in the deception of DOT which was necessary to obtain that contract. When a DOT project manager, Ms Nazaretian raised concerns about the project, you were deployed to assuage these concerns and restore the relationship. You invoiced GWM $20,000 for this contract management.
Second, in late 2010 Consalter entered into a partnership with GWM regarding a tender to design and built 430 bus stops in Melbourne. The tender was worth $2,387,050. You, Wells, and Ooi worked together to prepare the tender. Wells and Ooi were involved in the assessment and recommendation of tender proposals, including the partnership between Consalter and GWM. In fact, you were formally interviewed by Wells and Ooi during the tender process in their capacity as DOT officers. Ooi signed the tender assessment, for which Wells was the contract manger. At no stage was the conflict disclosed. The contract ran from November 2010 until January 2012 and was managed by you and Ooi. However, the work was in fact performed by Grand Earthworks as a subcontractor of GWM. Invoices found during the course of the investigation indicate that you invoiced GWM for $187,440 for ‘audit, design and preparation of plans’. Forensic financial analysis indicates that this amount was paid by GWM to Consalter.
You were often engaged by the DOT to prepare engineering estimates. The information you obtained from doing this could be used or passed on to the various managed entities to be used by them, when preparing a tender or quote for a job. You concede that this information was of assistance to the managed entities, by allowing them ‘to make a quote or a tender with reference to figures that the department already has before them’.
You provided benefits to Wells, being the secret commissions the subject of charges 2 and 3. I accept that in each instance the secret commissions were sought by Wells, not paid at your instigation. Your counsel described how you came to view Wells as your client, synonymous with the DOT in your mind. Accordingly, you ‘did what [you] could to keep [your] client happy’ and ‘to ensure a reliable source of work’.
You were committed for trial on 16 September 2016. Your initial plea offer on 13 October 2016 was not accepted by the prosecution. A second plea offer, made on 7 June 2017, resolved the contest. On each occasion you indicated you would be willing to assist the investigating authorities, to make a statement, and to give evidence if called to do so. The second offer came after Ooi had been sentenced and undertaken to give evidence against his co-conspirators, and I had rejected Well’s application for a permanent stay.
Your plea of guilty was taken on 19 June 2017 in the presence of certain other trial accused who were then contesting their charges, namely Wells, Hayes, Davis and Andrew Ooi. You said in their presence that you would be assisting the prosecution with a full statement.
The conspiracy operated for a period of just over 7 years, from 1 January 2007 to 9 January 2014. Your involvement was for the period from 3 September 2009 to 9 January 2014, or approximately four years and four months. Your more limited temporal involvement in the conspiracy is a significant point of distinction between your culpability and that of Wells and Ooi.
During the entire duration of the conspiracy, at least 251 government contracts were awarded to the various entities operated by the conspiracy, and the total value of the contracts awarded was approximately $17,170,898.85. During the period of your involvement in the conspiracy, 177 contracts were awarded, with a total value of $10,668,037. The total amount actually paid during that period for works done pursuant to the contract was slightly greater, $10,956,766.30, due to cost overruns and other such reasons. These figures confirm that the overall magnitude of the criminal enterprise in which you participated was significantly less than the total conspiracy for which Wells and Ooi were responsible.
The prosecution does not allege against you that you were involved in each of these contracts, rather in a general advisory role to the other conspirators and managed entities, you assisted by providing technical expertise, advice, design and other engineering skills, and project management services.
The financial return to you from the conspiracy was substantially less than that taken by Wells and Ooi. Your company, Consalter received $1,308,844.70 in total directly from DOT, DOI and PTV. Consalter was also paid a total of $437,178.32 by the managed entities and related sub-contractors for other work performed, such as consultancy and project-management services. These sums are a better indicator of the magnitude of the work you performed in the course of the conspiracy, but do not reveal the full extent of your role. You did not charge a fee for all the services provided to the co-conspirators and managed entities. I take this additional involvement into account when assessing the moral culpability of your offending. I am persuaded to the requisite standard that you were fully aware, at all times, of what you were ‘getting involved in’.
As was the case with Ooi and Wells, the prosecution conceded that there was no evidence that the contracts were excessively priced. An audit undertaken by PTV revealed that the work was done to an acceptable standard. As was the case with both Ooi and Wells, it has not been possible to calculate, as a figure, the loss to the State occasioned by your offending conduct. Although your offending contributed to the anti-competitive process for awarding government works, it cannot be established that the Government paid higher prices for the relevant works than it otherwise would have paid. Again as with Ooi and Wells, any loss to the State might have been an aggravating factor of your offending, but that has not been shown and I do not sentence you on that basis.
I also note, as your counsel observed, that the money received by Consalter represented the value of work actually done. The prosecution has not attempted an analysis to identify the actual profit made by Consalter or yourself as a consequence of your offending. Such an analysis would be difficult, but I accept that the figures provided would include legitimate costs and expenses incurred in performing the work. Despite the limitations in the analysis I am satisfied that you obtained significant financial benefit from your offending conduct, and that you were motivated by financial gain. It does not follow that when a relatively lower sum is involved than that identified for your co-offenders, condign punishment is not appropriate.
The prosecution submitted that your conduct was a serious example of a conspiracy to defraud and your counsel conceded that description was appropriate. I agree. Your offending was a very serious example of a conspiracy to defraud. It contributed in a significant way over a very substantial period of time, to arrangements that were clearly contrary to Government procurement processes and rules regarding conflicts of interest in respect of a large number of contracts of substantial value.
The characterisation of your involvement in the conspiracy was in dispute at your plea hearing. The prosecution submitted that while there was a clear distinction in seriousness between the roles played by Wells and Ooi and your role, you were number 3 in the hierarchy. It submitted that your role and in particular your technical expertise enabled you to play an important, if not critical, part by preparing quotes, tenders and engineering estimates, that was pivotal to the success of the conspiracy. The prosecution argued that it would have been difficult to find a similarly qualified individual to carry out this role. Your technical skill placed you above those in the conspiracy who performed less-skilled work, such as Hayes and Davis.
By contrast, your counsel rejected that demarcation of roles, submitting that after acknowledging Well and Ooi to be the masterminds, no meaningful distinction could be drawn between the other participants, as each of their roles was pivotal in one way or another. For example Hayes and Davis contributed their physical labour but also acted as directors and shareholders, propping up the sham corporate structure. Your counsel did not suggest that your role was not pivotal but invited me to find that no one of these roles was more or less pivotal than another.
For the purposes of assessing your moral culpability and for considerations of parity of sentence between co-offenders I am satisfied that on a hierarchical assessment of your role in the conspiracy you played a significantly lesser role than Wells and Ooi but otherwise your role was both pivotal and crucial. It was your contribution that enabled ‘a credible apparently independent quote or tender’, which was central to the deception of the legitimate procurement processes that ought to have applied. You also contributed to ensuring that work was carried out appropriately, and that workers were trained in the use of necessary equipment, such as survey equipment. Each of these activities was essential to the ongoing success of the conspiracy.
You knowingly assisted Wells and Ooi to control the process of quotation and tendering as well as the process of evaluation and recommendation, which enabled them to control the margins where the profit lay. The criminal conspiracy effectively undermined the public service procurement policies that are designed to protect the revenue and ensure that government contracting works are put out at the most competitive available price. Honest contractors would have been dissuaded from participating. As such, your crime involved corruption of the trust that citizens of this State place in public servants that taxpayer funds will be honestly expended and accounted for in the public interest. Corruption of this kind strikes at the heart of our civilised democracy.
Your offending, by giving the secret commissions that are the subjects of charges 2 and 3, was also, as your counsel conceded, serious examples of that crime. Charge 2 is a rolled-up charge. These are not isolated acts of dishonesty. You gave secret commissions to Wells on multiple occasions. You paid Wells a total of $80,632. Although that is a modest amount in the context of the total conspiracy, the value of the secret commissions paid is not a true indicator of the culpability of the offending. You were well aware that you were contributing to a criminal conspiracy being carried out by Ooi and Wells. You paid secret commissions to maintain your place in the conspiracy and the payments confirmed the corrupt nature of your relationship with Wells.
You have pleaded guilty to what is commonly called ‘white collar crime’. That characterisation identifies a number of important sentencing considerations.[6] In my view, the principal sentencing objectives in your case are those of general deterrence, punishment and denunciation.
[6]DPP v Bulfin [1998] 4 VR 114; recently approved of in Dyason v The Queen (2015) 251 A Crim R 366.
Your relationship with Wells made possible your criminal conduct and circumstances permitted you to conceal your offending. You thought you could get away with it and but for investigation by a specialist corruption commission you might have. Detection was difficult and the investigation of your crime was lengthy and very expensive. Had you not pleaded guilty, your trial and proof of your offending may have presented challenges to the prosecution.
Expenditure, procurement and tender processes in government departments and corporations depend on a level of trust in participants to act in an honest and independent manner. The temptations for personal enrichment by dishonest means are well recognised. Particularly in circumstances where your offending was motivated by pursuit of personal gain, the need to impose a sentence that has a significant general deterrent effect on others facing similar temptations is very strong.
These are common features in white collar offending and they are features that in your case call for condign punishment. These considerations, in my view, require that the element of general deterrence is a particularly important sentencing objective for your crimes, both in relation to the total effective sentence and the non-parole period; together with a requirement for strong denunciation of such conduct by the sentencing court.
General deterrence of persons contemplating corporate or white collar criminality requires not so much a significantly long head sentence but a sentence under which the offender spends a substantial term in actual custody by virtue of the non-parole period. It is inappropriate to fix an unduly short non-parole period that would, in your case, be subversive of the goal of general deterrence.
As I will later describe, you are being sentenced as a man of previously good character with no prior convictions and a good reputation in the community, but, in white collar crime cases generally, and in your case, what is generally regarded as a significant mitigating factor cannot shift the dominant objectives in sentencing of general deterrence and denunciation. Your counsel rightly acknowledged that given the seriousness of your offending it is appropriate that a term of imprisonment be imposed. A substantial term of imprisonment before eligibility for parole is warranted.
However, on your behalf your counsel has pressed a number of matters that I accept warrant mitigation of the sentence that I might otherwise have imposed.
The law recognises that a guilty plea normally justifies a significant discount. I recognise that you ought to receive a reduced sentence for pleading guilty. Your plea of guilty is indicative of remorse, and although there may have been other matters influencing the timing of your decision, I take it as such. I accept that you genuinely regret your decision to become involved in the conspiracy. A psychologist, Dr Newton, confirmed that you have experienced a profound sense of shame and embarrassment as a result of the discovery of your offending conduct. Your plea of guilty has also had significant utilitarian benefit. It has saved the community the time and expense of what would have inevitably been a lengthy and technical trial.
You were also initially cooperative with IBAC, and you were publicly examined. In the course of this examination you provided IBAC with a cheque book with stubs indicating your payment of secret commissions to Wells. You then offered to be interviewed and provide a statement to IBAC, on the condition that you would not be charged. This offer was not accepted.
At your plea hearing you gave an undertaking to assist, after being sentenced, law enforcement authorities in the prosecution of remaining offenders by giving evidence if required. You have now provided a statement of what you can say and your counsel submitted that your statement is fulsome, providing a clear level of detail about the involvement of the remaining trial accused, Hayes and Andrew Ooi. The Crown accepts that your statement may be of assistance in their prosecution. You have also provided a hard drive that you believe may contain earlier versions of documents possibly helpful to investigators.
The value of this statement and your undertaking to assist is limited to some extent by its timing. Only Andrew Ooi and Hayes continue to contest the conspiracy and related charges. The extent to which your cooperation and your statement will provide any significant assistance to the prosecution in respect of the trial of the remaining co-conspirators may not be substantial. Nonetheless I take into account your previous offers to make such a statement, made at an earlier stage in the proceedings, and your conduct before me as evidence of your genuine remorse and of favourable prospects for your rehabilitation.
The law recognises the need to encourage others to assist the authorities in the investigation and prosecution of criminal behaviour and the need to do justice having regard to the particular circumstances of the case, including by way of a sentence discount, to an individual who has done so. That said, Parliament has implemented a new legislative response in the case of public corruption through the Independent Broad-based Anti-corruption Commission Act 2011. The work of investigative authorities is now assisted by coercive examination and other measures that are relevant when assessing the appropriate discount for assistance of this nature.
It may be that your cooperation with the authorities will be an additional hardship or burden during your imprisonment. Taking all these matters into account, I will give you some benefit by mitigating the sentence that I would have otherwise imposed but for your willingness to give evidence against your co-offenders. I direct that your undertaking to give this evidence be noted in the court records.
Turning now to your personal circumstances. You were born in 1964 and were raised in Bendigo, Melbourne and Shepparton. Your father was a builder and teacher, and your mother worked in manufacturing. You had a happy childhood, and were a good and popular student.
You continued to study into adulthood, first gaining TAFE qualifications in technical drawing and drafting, then an Advanced Certificate in Civil Engineering, an Associate Diploma in Civil Engineering, and other auditing and surveying certifications.
You commenced your career in 1983 at the State Electricity Commission. You remained there until 1988. You worked in several different roles in regional areas, as head draftsman at a kitchen fabrication company in Numurkah, as a designer in the Yarrawonga housing industry, and as a sales representative for Red Tulip and Smith Foods.
You then decided to focus on your professional qualifications in engineering and design work. You joined the company Planright Australasia in Tatura as a technical officer in 1992. In 1995, you left that job following the company’s shift in focus to irrigation, for which your skills were not required. You then joined a private engineering consultancy company as a technical officer in 1996, and stayed there until 2001. In 2001 you became first a geospatial information systems officer, and then senior technical officer at the Greater Shepparton City Council, where you were employed until 2006.
It was during your time at the Council that you met Mr Greg Morrissey whose invitation to join him at the newly incorporated Tactile you accepted, commencing as an assistant manager there in 2006.
In 2009 you established Consalter. Your counsel explained that, as an independent contractor, you were able to continue working for Tactile but with greater flexibility to work remotely or from home. That opportunity became important as you moved with your wife to her family farm at Buckland. In addition, with Consalter, you intended to continue working for Tactile, while developing a broader client base. I accept that Consalter was not deliberately established for the purposes of Wells’ conspiracy.
Turning to your personal life, at age 20 you married your first wife, Amanda, but divorced her after 10 years. You received medication and counselling after the breakdown of this marriage when you first experienced depression. You have two adult children from that marriage with whom you remain close. You have disclosed your offending to your children.
In 2007 you married your current wife, Leisha, who you describe as your best friend and life-partner. You are anxious about your wife coping alone on the farm while you complete your sentence.
Your family remains close. You told your siblings about your offending at the outset of the IBAC investigation. Your elderly parents have some health problems and live in an assisted living facility. You delayed telling your parents of your offending out of concern for their health. However, in advance of the plea hearing you told them what you had done. Your parents and siblings remain supportive of you.
You provided a number of character references.
Your wife, Leisha, describes you as having a happy, positive disposition, and a strong willingness to help others. She related how you helped a friend’s son find employment and get ‘back on track’ when he had a drug problem. She also describes the support you have given her through difficult personal times.
Ms Vivian Anderson, a close friend of your wife and yourself, describes you as showing ‘great loyalty and exceptional helpfulness’, and ‘believing in the good of everyone’. Despite your present position, Ms Anderson has appointed you and your wife in her will to be guardians of her two children.
Ms Emma Walton, a co-worker from your time at the Greater Shepparton City Council, who remains a friend, notes your ability to ‘quickly establish a strong rapport within the team due to [your] affable character and excellent technical skills’. She describes you as a ‘solid friend’ and praises your ‘sensitivity and maturity’ and ‘strong moral ethics’.
Ms Janelle Boynton, your current employer at Feathertop Winery, observed that you told her about the IBAC investigation and your offending in 2015. She describes you as demonstrating ‘integrity, honesty and hard work’. She also describes you as generous, charming, and a ‘crowd pleaser’. Although your counsel accepted that this was not a realistic option, Ms Boynton offered to supervise and continue to employ you as an alternative to imprisonment.
I have read these references in full, and have taken them into consideration. It is evident that you are held in high esteem for your kindness and personable nature. However, an otherwise unblemished character is a common feature of offenders in the case of white collar crimes and is a matter that, while relevant, ought not be given great emphasis. The testimonials of your family, friends, and colleagues are consistent with your history of no previous involvement with the criminal justice system.
I have no hesitation in accepting that your prospects of rehabilitation are excellent and it is unlikely that you would offend again. I do not consider that specific deterrence is engaged as a sentencing objective. I accept that the process of investigation and prosecution of itself has contributed to the goal of specific deterrence. The deterrent and rehabilitative impact of a sentence of imprisonment will be substantial. You are not burdened with any mental health or substance abuse issues and you have the intelligence and education to benefit from therapeutic programs within the corrections system.
You state that since the execution of the first search warrants in January 2014, and as you have faced the justice system, you have developed significant anxiety. A report from your general practitioner Dr Doug Devereux described the course of your anxiety. In March 2015 he prescribed antidepressant medication, which you still take. Your anxiety affected your ability to work at Feathertop Winery and you ceased working full-time, and now work as a casual.
Your anxiety is managed by treatment. Dr Patrick Newton, a psychologist, reported that you still experience significant anxiety, and your history places you at risk of more frequent and more intense bouts of anxiety and mood disturbance than prisoners without such history. Dr Newton thought that there was ‘some risk that [your] condition could deteriorate’ in custody and that ongoing professional management would be prudent. However, you have no personality disorder and the risk of more frequent or more intense bouts of anxiety or mood disturbance identified by Dr Newton were observations made in anticipation of your sentence. Dr Newton has not persuaded me that your mental health cannot be described as normal. I am not persuaded that a sentence of imprisonment will be more onerous for you than for other prisoners.[7]
[7]R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269, 276 [32].
It was also submitted that your imprisonment would be a significant burden upon your wife, financially, practically, and personally. This is not of itself a mitigating factor, and your counsel did not suggest otherwise. While it is a matter that may weigh upon you while serving your sentence, it does not warrant mitigation of your sentence.
As required by the Sentencing Act 1991,[8] I have had regard to current sentencing practices. Offending of the kind and complexity of your conduct is relatively rare. I have considered a number of cases on white collar crimes that included conspiracy to defraud, fraudulent book keeping, and other offences.[9] I have also considered the statistics compiled by the Sentencing Advisory Council for conspiracy to defraud contrary to common law.[10]
[8]Sentencing Act 1991, s 5(2)(b).
[9]The Judicial College of Victoria Sentencing Manual at Chapter 32.14.6.3 summarises deception cases before the Victorian Supreme Court of Appeal from 2013 to present, current as at February 2017, only some of which are relevant. See specifically Aitchison v The Queen [2015] VSCA 348; Lim v The Queen [2013] VSCA 148; Smith v The Queen [2012] VSCA 187; Day v The Queen [2011] VSCA 243; DPP (Cth) v Page [2006] VSCA 224. In the trial division, see R v Johnson [2014] VSC 175; R v Murray [2011] VSC 513; R v Chan (2010) 79 ACSR 189.
[10]
Finally, I should state that I sentence you on the basis that your criminality was significantly less than that of Wells and Ooi. As I have noted, your involvement in the conspiracy was on a lower tier, was for a significantly shorter period than their offending, and involved a lesser number of contracts and a lower value of total public funds committed. You were not a mastermind, or a key manager, and although the conspiracy could have been carried off without you, it could not have happened without Wells and Ooi.
Ultimately, I must fix a sentence which is just in all the circumstances of your case and is not more severe than is necessary to achieve those purposes.[11] In so doing, I carefully considered each of the matters to which I have referred. I have also carefully considered all that has been said on your behalf, particularly by your counsel in urging mitigation of penalty to the extent feasible in your case, even if I have not specifically referred to it.
[11]Sentencing Act 1991, s 5(3).
Please stand, Mr Salter.
On charge 1 - conspiracy to defraud contrary to Common Law - you are sentenced to 4 years imprisonment. That is the base sentence.
On charge 2 – giving a secret commission contrary to s 176(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 – you are sentenced to 1 year’s imprisonment. On charge 3 – giving a secret commission contrary to s 176(2) of the Crimes Act 1958 – you are sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment.
Considering the totality of your offending and bearing in mind the principle of parsimony, I will order some cumulation of the sentences on charges 2 and 3 with the base sentence. Those charges represent a different harm caused by offending of a different type to the first charge, although related to it and with overlapping features. I direct that 4 months of the sentence on charge 2 be served cumulatively on the sentence on charge 1, and 1 month of the sentence on charge 3 be served cumulatively on the sentences on charges 1 and 2.
The result is a total effective sentence of 4 years and 5 months’ imprisonment. I direct that you serve a minimum term of 3 years’ imprisonment before you are eligible for parole.
Pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991, I declare that, but for your plea of guilty, I would have imposed on you a total sentence of 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a minimum of 5 years to serve before being eligible for parole.
---
0
12
0