R v Stephen Michael Larkin - [2007] NSWDC 305

CITATION: R v Stephen Michael Larkin [2007] NSWDC 305

HEARING DATE(S): 31/01/07, 20/04/07, 26/04/07, 13/07/07, 09/08/07

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 August 2007

JURISDICTION: Criminal

JUDGMENT OF: Norrish QC DCJ

DECISION: See paragraphs 126 to 131

CATCHWORDS: Criminal law - Sentence - manager of a corporation - intent to defraud - false entry - breach of trust

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Crimes Act 1900
Veterinary Practice Act

CASES CITED: Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
Markarian v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1048
Regina v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584
R v Allpass (1993) 72 ACrimR 561
R v Diaz [2004] NSWCCA 251
Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309
R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17
R v JCE (2000) 120 ACrimR 18
R v Dinsdale (2000) 202 CLR 321

PARTIES: Regina
Stephen Michael Larkin

FILE NUMBER(S): 05/11/0160

COUNSEL: Mr Calvert - Crown
Mr Fliece - Offender

SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: In your case what I propose to do as follows: In relation to Counts one to three I propose to convict you and place you on a good behaviour bond for a period of two years in respect of each count.

2 In respect of Counts five, six, seven and eight I propose to sentence you to a term of imprisonment of thirteen months and that will be suspended pursuant to s 12 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act.

3 In respect of Counts ten, eleven and twelve I propose to sentence you to imprisonment, to be served by way of periodic detention for sixteen months in relation to each of those offences.

4 In relation to Count four, taking into account the matters in the Form 1, I propose to sentence you to a term of imprisonment by way of non parole period of sixteen months, the balance of sentence of sixteen months, to be served by way of periodic detention. That sentence will be concurrent with the terms of imprisonment I impose in relation to Counts ten, eleven and twelve. Do you understand those orders? I will make those orders formally when I finish my remarks on sentence. I have got quite a deal of territory to cover, you can take a seat and I will give my reasons.

5 The prisoner, Stephen Michael Larkin, appears today for sentence in relation to two offences to which he pleaded guilty in this Court on 31 January 2007, brought pursuant to s 175 Crimes Act, 1900. Each offence carries a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment.

6 The twelve offences, although each contain different particulars, allege against the prisoner that he, being a Director of Actwane Pty Limited did with intent to defraud make a false entry in the relevant records of the corporation.

7 The various offences each have different particulars, which I will deal with as I go through the objective facts. The false entries were made, as I understand the particulars…

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 Stephen Michael Larkin

Details

AGLC: R v Stephen Michael Larkin [2007] NSWDC 305
Case: [2007] NSWDC 305
Decision Date: 9 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stephen Michael Larkin, the defendant was convicted of multiple charges related to his role as the manager of a corporation, including making a false entry in the corporation's books and breaching his fiduciary duties. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The dispute centred on the extent of the defendant's culpability and the appropriate sentence to be imposed, taking into account his role, the nature of the offences, and the harm caused.

The court was required to determine the legal issues surrounding the defendant's intent to defraud, the impact of his actions on the corporation and its stakeholders, and the principles that should guide the sentencing process. A key issue was whether the defendant's actions were driven by a deliberate intent to defraud or if they resulted from negligence or oversight.

In delivering the judgment, the court considered the gravity of the offences, the defendant's position of trust, and the significant breach of fiduciary duty. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence and the need to uphold the integrity of the corporate governance system. After a thorough analysis of the evidence and legal arguments, the court concluded that the defendant's actions warranted a substantial custodial sentence, reflecting the seriousness of the breach of trust and the need to protect the public from similar misconduct. The final orders, as outlined in paragraphs 126 to 131, included a sentence of imprisonment and other conditions to be observed by the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

See paragraphs 126 to 131

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.

CITATION:	R v Stephen Michael Larkin [2007] NSWDC 305
HEARING DATE(S):	31/01/07, 20/04/07, 26/04/07, 13/07/07, 09/08/07
JUDGMENT DATE:	9 August 2007
JURISDICTION:	Criminal
JUDGMENT OF:	Norrish QC DCJ
DECISION:	See paragraphs 126 to 131
CATCHWORDS:	Criminal law - Sentence - manager of a corporation - intent to defraud - false entry - breach of trust
LEGISLATION CITED:	Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 Crimes Act 1900 Veterinary Practice Act
CASES CITED:	Ibbs v The Queen (1987) 163 CLR 447 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 79 ALJR 1048 Regina v Way [2004] NSWCCA 131 Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584 R v Allpass (1993) 72 ACrimR 561 R v Diaz [2004] NSWCCA 251 Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309 R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17 R v JCE (2000) 120 ACrimR 18 R v Dinsdale (2000) 202 CLR 321
PARTIES:	Regina Stephen Michael Larkin
FILE NUMBER(S):	05/11/0160
COUNSEL:	Mr Calvert - Crown Mr Fliece - Offender