R v Watt

Case [2021] ACTSC 20 9 February 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Watt
Citation:	[2021] ACTSC 20
Hearing Dates:	15 and 18 December 2020; 5 February 2021
Decision Date:	9 February 2021
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [51]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – giving false or misleading information as an officer of a corporation – mid range example of offence – offending occurred over a substantial period of time – gross breach of offender’s obligations to the corporation – medium to low risk of reoffending – automatic disqualification from managing corporations – sentence of
imprisonment and recognizance release order imposed
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – application for a reparation order in favour of a corporation – satisfied beyond
reasonable double that the corporation suffered a loss as a result
of the offending – difficulty in quantifying the extent of the loss –
therefore inappropriate to make a reparation order
Legislation Cited:	Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 9, 206B, 1309 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 17A, 21B Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), s 19 Environment Protection Act 1997 (ACT)
Cases Cited:	Armory v Delamirie (1722) 1 Stra 505; 93 ER 664 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Couper [2013] VSCA 72; 41 VR 128 Director of Public Prosecutions v Smith and De Alwis [2016] VCC 705 Houghton v Immer (No 155) Pty Ltd (1997) 44 NSWLR 46 RK v Mirik [2009] VSC 14; 21 VR 623 R v Braham [1977] VR 104 R v CA (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 371; 316 FLR 49 R v Falconer [2018] NSWSC 1765 R v Foster [2008] QCA 90; 1 Qd R 53 R v Landolt (1992) 63 A Crim R 220 R v Raines [2017] NSWDC 217; 25 DCLR(NSW) 239 R v Roussakis [2020] ACTSC 19 R v Steen [2015] ACTSC 259
Parties:	The Queen (Crown)
Edward Watt (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel
T Hickey (Crown) G Denman and M Hassall (15 December 2020), M Hassall (18 December 2020) and K Clowry (5 February 2021) (Offender)
Solicitors
ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Clowry & Associates (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 47 of 2019
MOSSOP J:
Introduction

1. The offender, Edward Watt, pleaded guilty to one count of, as an officer of a corporation, giving information or authorising or permitting the giving of information to a director of the corporation, which related to the affairs of the corporation and that was, to his knowledge, false or misleading in a material particular or omitted from it a matter or thing which rendered the information misleading in a material respect. This occurred between 10 November 2014 and 19 October 2015. The offence is a contravention of s 1309(1)
of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth). The maximum penalty for this offence is five years’
imprisonment, a fine of $34,000 or both.
2. His co-offender is Leon Rousakis who is being dealt with at the same time: see R…

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 Watt

Details

AGLC: R v Watt [2021] ACTSC 20
Case: [2021] ACTSC 20
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Edward Watt pleaded guilty to a charge of providing false and misleading information to a director of Canberra Concrete Recyclers Pty Ltd (CCR) as an officer of the corporation. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the offender's character and antecedents, the plea of guilty, and the effect of imprisonment on the offender's family, among other factors. The court also considered an application for a reparation order in favour of CCR. The offender was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 15 months, reduced to six months on account of the plea of guilty, subject to a recognizance release order. The court refused to make a reparation order as it was not possible to quantify the loss suffered by CCR beyond reasonable doubt.

In reaching its decision, the court considered a number of sentencing principles and factors, including the need for general and specific deterrence, the offender's acceptance of responsibility and contrition, and the effect of imprisonment on the offender's family. The court also considered the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the offender and his family. The court took into account the existence of the pandemic and the likelihood of some additional burdens of imprisonment as a result of measures to address the risks posed by the pandemic. Those impacts would fall both upon the offender as well as upon his family.

The court also considered an application for a reparation order in favour of CCR. The Crown submitted that a reparation order should be made in favour of CCR in the sum of $895,147.38, which represented the difference between the total amount paid by Tip It for the dumping of waste and the total cost of sending to landfill the proportion of that waste which is non-recyclable. The court refused to make a reparation order as it was not possible to quantify the loss suffered by CCR beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that there were differing estimates of the percentage of material in Tip It loads which would be required to be sent to landfill, no evidence as to whether the undocumented truckloads of material were in fact processed, and minimal evidence as to any existing compulsion upon the business to remove unlawfully dumped waste from the site. The court held that the refusal of a reparation order did not affect any rights CCR had to recover from the offender in civil proceedings.

Orders