R v Szeto - [1999] NSWCCA 296

CITATION: R v Szeto [1999] NSWCCA 296

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60365/98

HEARING DATE(S): 15 September 1999

JUDGMENT DATE:
15 September 1999

PARTIES :

Lance William Szeto
Regina (NSW)

JUDGMENT OF: Wood CJ at CL; Simpson J at 22

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 97/11/1023

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Downs DCJ

COUNSEL: J.C. Nicholson SC for Applicant
R.D. Ellis for Crown

SOLICITORS: T.A. Muprhy for Applicant
S.E. O'Connor for Crown

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - appeal against sentence for dishonestly obtaining goods by deception - whether manifestly excessive - whether special circumstances exist

DECISION: Sentence quashed, and in lieu thereof applicant sentenced to a minimum term of penal servitude for 2 years 3 months, to commence from 18 June 1998, and expire on 17 September 2000; and an additional term of 9 months to date from the expiration of the minimum term. As a consequence of that order, applicant to be released on parole at the end of the minimum term.

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL
60365/98

WOOD CJ AT CL
SIMPSON J

WEDNESDAY 15 SEPTEMBER 1999

REGINA v LANCE WILLIAM SZETO
JUDGMENT

1 WOOD CJ AT CL: The applicant pleaded guilty a charge that between 10 February 1996 and 12 August 1996 he dishonestly obtained by deception a quantity of Digital brand laptops, monitors, keyboards and accessories, with a manufacturer’s value of $318,910.73. 2 The offence charged related to thirty-three instances of fraudulent orders placed by him, over a six months period, through the computer system of his employer, Digital Engineering Corporation. In committing the offence he took advantage of his position as an Accounts Manager with that company. His duties involved the receiving of orders from customers and placing those orders onto the computer. False invoices were prepared that were directed to the primary customers. 3 False credit notes were issued when those customers complained that they had not purchased the goods. 4 The applicant sold all of the equipment obtained by means of his deception. Upon his admission, the funds received, which approximated 70 per cent of the retail value of the equipment of $762,175, was spent on living the high life. This apparently included paying off his credit card and also paying off a Lotus motor-vehicle which he had acquired. 5 One reason offered for his criminality was that he was dissatisfied, or disgruntled with his employer; otherwise the applicant sought to place the blame upon the person who acquired the equipment from him. The case was not one in which the applicant had any pressing financial needs, or similar reason, for offending. 6 The applicant had not given any retribution by the time he appeared for sentence, even though he had expressed an intention to do so and had obtained fresh employment in a highly paid position. 7 He did, however, plead guilty from the outset and he had no prior convictions. His employment prior to the offence was continuous and he was well versed in computer skills, including…

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 Szeto

Details

AGLC: R v Szeto [1999] NSWCCA 296
Case: [1999] NSWCCA 296
Decision Date: 15 September 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Szeto involved the appellant, Szeto, who was convicted for dishonestly obtaining goods by deception. Szeto appealed against the severity of his sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and did not take into account the special circumstances of his case. The appeal was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the sentence imposed on Szeto was manifestly excessive and whether there were special circumstances that warranted a reduction in his sentence. The court considered the principles of sentencing in criminal cases, particularly focusing on the balance between punishment and deterrence, as well as the need to consider the personal circumstances of the offender.

The Court of Criminal Appeal examined the nature and circumstances of Szeto's offence, the impact of his actions, and the principles of proportionality and individualisation in sentencing. The court assessed whether the sentence was so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience of the community and whether there were any mitigating factors that were not adequately considered in the original sentencing. Ultimately, the court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately considered the special circumstances. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The court did not alter the sentence imposed on Szeto, affirming the original decision of the lower court. The final orders confirmed that Szeto's appeal against his sentence was unsuccessful, and he would continue to serve the sentence as determined by the original trial.

Orders