Regina v Clark - [2001] NSWCCA 69

CITATION: Regina v Clark [2001] NSWCCA 69

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60492/00

HEARING DATE(S): 6 March 2001

JUDGMENT DATE:
6 March 2001

PARTIES :

Regina v Peter James Clark

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1, 24, 26; Hulme J at 25; Smart AJ at 2

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 99/11/3017

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Gibson DCJ

COUNSEL : (A) J Crespo
(R) C P O'Donnell

SOLICITORS: (A) G H Healey & Co - Bondi
(R) Commonwalth DPP

CATCHWORDS: Sentencing - Extended course of dishonesty - Whether subsequent offences correctly taken into account

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)

CASES CITED:
The Queen v De Simoni (1981) 147 CLR 383 at 389

DECISION: Leave to appeal against sentence refused

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

60492/00

MEAGHER JA
HULME J
SMART AJ

Tuesday 6 March 2001

REGINA v PETER JAMES CLARK

JUDGMENT

1 MEAGHER JA: I will ask Smart AJ to give the first judgment.

2 SMART AJ : Peter James Clark appeals against the severity of a sentence of imprisonment for two offences of stealing property belonging to the Australia Postal Corporation contrary to section 71 of the Crimes Act 1914 (Commonwealth) .

3 The first offence occurred between 14 March 1997 and 19 June 1997 when the appellant stole $3312.70 from the Woollahra Post Office. The second offence occurred between 29 July 1997 and 8 April 1998, when the appellant stole $47,910 from the Coogee Post Office. The appellant was convicted by a jury after a five day trial.

4 As to the first offence, the appellant was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment of eight months. For the second offence the appellant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment and ordered to be released after serving eight months upon entering into a recognisance to be of good behaviour. The sentences were to be served concurrently.

5 The applicant was the Acting Postal Manager at Woollahra Post Office and the Postal Manager at Coogee Post Office. The two offences involved repeated acts of dishonesty by the applicant who, over an extended period, created a number of false computer records each time he took funds from Australia Post. The computer records were designed to give the impression that the payments were legitimate refunds or compensation payments made to customers. Evidence given at the trial established that the applicant created the false records in an attempt to cover up the offences.

6 Two fellow employees gave evidence that the applicant had suggested that they tell investigators that they had thrown some records out during a clean-out. One of the employees stated that the applicant later told him that he might have to go to Court and give false testimony about the missing records. Neither of the employees was cross-examined about this evidence.

7 The Crown relied on the evidence as admissions implicating the applicant in the commission of the offences and establishing his consciousness of guilt.

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 Regina v Clark

Details

AGLC: Regina v Clark [2001] NSWCCA 69
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 69
Decision Date: 6 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Regina as the prosecutor and Clark as the defendant. The dispute centred around Clark's extended course of dishonesty, specifically whether subsequent offences should be taken into account when sentencing. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The court was required to determine if the trial judge correctly considered the totality of Clark's offending when imposing the sentence. The key issue was whether the subsequent offences were appropriately factored into the sentencing process.

The court examined the principles of sentencing, particularly the requirement to consider the totality of an offender's criminal conduct. It was noted that the trial judge had considered Clark's offending as a whole, including the subsequent offences, and had imposed a sentence that reflected the cumulative nature of his dishonesty. The court held that the trial judge had correctly exercised their discretion by taking into account the totality of Clark's offending, including the subsequent offences, in determining the appropriate sentence. The appeal was dismissed as the court found no error in the trial judge's approach to sentencing.

The Supreme Court of Victoria confirmed that the trial judge had appropriately considered the totality of Clark's offending, including subsequent offences, in determining the appropriate sentence. The court emphasised the importance of taking into account the cumulative nature of an offender's dishonesty when imposing a sentence. No further orders were made by the court.

Orders