R v Trevillian - [2024] NSWDC 669

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Trevillian [2024] NSWDC 669
Hearing dates: 8 November 2024, 20 December 2024
Date of orders: 8 November 2024, 20 December 2024
Decision date: 20 December 2024
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Neilson DCJ
Decision:
See pars [38]-[44].

Catchwords:
CRIME – SENTENCE – Forgery – Two charges – Investment manager in financial world – Forged auditor’s reports of his investment scheme used by his principal to entice its customers to invest with the principal – Sums invested by customers (over $14 million) reimbursed by offender within one month of offender’s principal’s learning of the forgeries – Crimes caused offender severe personal hardship – Aggregate sentence – ICO.

Legislation Cited:
Crimes Act 1900 ss 192E, 253(b)(ii).

Cases Cited:
R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383
Weaver v R [2021] NSWCCA 215

Texts Cited:
Nil.

Category: Sentence
Parties: Crown – R (NSW)
Offender – Brett Paul Trevillian
Representation:
Counsel:
Crown – Ms New, D.
Offender – Mr Edwards, T. SC.
Solicitors:
Crown – Australian Securities and Investments Commission
Offender – Kerrs Law

File Number(s): 2023/00226962
Publication restriction: Nil.

Judgment

HIS HONOUR: Brett Paul Trevillian stands for sentence as a consequence of pleading guilty to two charges. They are known as Sequence 1 and Sequence 4. The amended Court Attendance Notice (“CAN”) of Sequence 1 is this:

"[He] did make a false document with the intention that another person will use it to induce some person to accept it as genuine, and because of its being accepted as genuine, to obtain any financial advantage."

The particulars of the false document given in the amended CAN are these:

"A Bell Partners 'Portfolio Performance Verification ‑ Report of factual findings', dated 22 May 2019, showing the 'Secured' monthly returns for the years 2012 to 2018.
A Bell Partners 'Portfolio Performance Verification ‑ Report of factual findings', dated 22 May 2019, showing the 'Secured' yearly returns for the years 2012 to 2018.
A Bell Partners 'Portfolio Performance Verification ‑ Report of factual findings', dated 22 May 2019, showing the 'Secured' yearly returns for the years 2014 to 2018."

That is an offence pursuant to s 253(b)(ii) of the Crimes Act 1900.

The second offence is known as Sequence 4. The relevant pleading is not clear from the document before me but can be found on page 9 of the Crown tender; that is, between about 10 September 2019 and about 2 October 2019 at Sydney and places elsewhere, Brett Trevillian made a false document with the intention that another person will use it to induce some person to accept it as genuine, and because of its being accepted as genuine, to obtain any financial advantage.
The particulars under that pleading are these;

"A Bell Partners 'Portfolio Performance Verification ‑ Report of factual findings', dated 1 October 2019, showing the 'Enhanced' yearly returns for the years 2014 to 2018."

That is an offence contrary to s 253(b)(ii) of the Crimes Act 1900. Each offence carries a maximum…

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 Trevillian

Details

AGLC: R v Trevillian [2024] NSWDC 669
Case: [2024] NSWDC 669
Decision Date: 20 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Trevillian involved a dispute between the Crown and the respondent, Trevillian, concerning charges of forgery. Trevillian, an investment manager, was accused of forging auditor’s reports to promote his principal’s investment scheme. Customers were induced to invest over $14 million based on these fraudulent reports. The court examined whether the forgery charges warranted a custodial sentence, considering Trevillian’s actions led to severe personal hardship.

The primary legal issue was whether the forgery charges warranted imprisonment. The court needed to assess the severity of the offence, the offender’s culpability, and the impact on the victims. Additionally, the court had to consider the offender's remorse and the prompt reimbursement of the invested sums to the victims, which occurred within a month of the discovery of the forgeries. This raised questions about the appropriate aggregate sentence and the balance between punishment and rehabilitation.

In delivering its decision, the court weighed the gravity of the forgery against the offender’s personal circumstances and the impact on the victims. It noted the offender’s remorse, the prompt restitution, and the severe personal hardship caused by the crime. The court determined that while the offence was serious, the offender’s circumstances warranted a sentence that considered both punishment and rehabilitation. The court imposed a sentence that aimed to deter future offences while acknowledging the offender’s personal suffering and the prompt restitution made to the victims.

The court concluded by outlining specific orders, including the terms of the sentence and any conditions imposed on the offender. These orders were detailed in paragraphs [38] to [44], providing clarity on the court’s expectations and the offender’s obligations moving forward. The decision highlighted the court’s approach to balancing the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, particularly in cases involving significant personal hardship.

Orders

Orders of the court

See pars [38]-[44].

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Trevillian [2024] NSWDC 669
Hearing dates:	8 November 2024, 20 December 2024
Date of orders:	8 November 2024, 20 December 2024
Decision date:	20 December 2024
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Neilson DCJ
Decision:	See pars [38]-[44].
Catchwords:	CRIME – SENTENCE – Forgery – Two charges – Investment manager in financial world – Forged auditor’s reports of his investment scheme used by his principal to entice its customers to invest with the principal – Sums invested by customers (over $14 million) reimbursed by offender within one month of offender’s principal’s learning of the forgeries – Crimes caused offender severe personal hardship – Aggregate sentence – ICO.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 ss 192E, 253(b)(ii).
Cases Cited:	R v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 Weaver v R [2021] NSWCCA 215
Texts Cited:	Nil.
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Crown – R (NSW) Offender – Brett Paul Trevillian
Representation:	Counsel: Crown – Ms New, D. Offender – Mr Edwards, T. SC. Solicitors: Crown – Australian Securities and Investments Commission Offender – Kerrs Law
File Number(s):	2023/00226962
Publication restriction:	Nil.