Regina v Cooper - [2006] NSWSC 609

Reported Decision:
58 ACSR 83

New South Wales

Supreme Court

CITATION: Regina v Cooper [2006] NSWSC 609

HEARING DATE(S): 22/8/05 to 31/10/05

JUDGMENT DATE :
23 June 2006

JUDGMENT OF: James J at 1

DECISION: On Counts 7 to 10 - Fixed term of imprisonment for 2-1/2 years; On Counts 11 and 12 - fixed term of imprisonment for 2 years; On Count 13 - fixed term of imprisonment for 1-1/2 years; On Counts 1 to 6 - imprisonment for 5 years with non-parole period of 2 years; Earliest parole date 30 October 2010 ; (See paragraph 274 for all details)

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - Sentencing - Bribery - False Statements - Crimes Act s178 BB - s249B (2)(b)

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act
Criminal Procedure Act
Corporations Act

CASES CITED: R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610

PARTIES: Regina
Bradley David Cooper

FILE NUMBER(S): SC 2004/2718

COUNSEL: L. P. Robberds QC - Crown
A. J. Bellanto QC - Prisoner

SOLICITORS: Commonwealth DPP - Crown
Uther Webster & Evans - Prisoner

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION

JAMES J

23 June 2006

2004/2718 REGINA v Bradley David COOPER
SENTENCE

1 HIS HONOUR: On 31 October 2005, after a trial presided over by me, the jury found the prisoner Bradley David Cooper guilty on all of the thirteen counts in the indictment which had been presented against him.

2 The first count in the indictment charged the prisoner with having on 3 December 2000 corruptly offered to give William Herbert Howard an agent of HIH Casualty & General Insurance Limited (to which I will refer as “HIH C&G”) a benefit, namely cash and employment by a company associated with the prisoner, the expectation of which would tend to influence Mr Howard to show favour to companies associated with the prisoner in relation to the affairs of HIH C&G, namely in the processing of claims by those companies.

3 Each of counts 2 to 6 in the indictment charged the prisoner with having corruptly given Mr Howard a benefit, namely an amount of cash, the receipt of which by Mr Howard would tend to influence Mr Howard to show favour to companies associated with the prisoner in the manner alleged in the first count.

4 The offences charged in the first six counts in the indictment were all offences under s 249B(2)(b) of the Crimes Act for which the maximum penalty is imprisonment for seven years. These offences can conveniently be referred to as “the bribery offences”.

5 In each of the remaining counts in the indictment, that is counts 7 to 13, the prisoner was charged with having published a statement to HIH C&G which he knew to be false in a material particular, with the intent to obtain a financial advantage for another person, being a company associated with the prisoner. The offences charged in counts 7 to 13 were all offences…

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 Cooper

Details

AGLC: Regina v Cooper [2006] NSWSC 609
Case: [2006] NSWSC 609
Decision Date: 23 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Cooper, was found guilty of multiple charges including bribery and making false statements. The case was brought before the court for sentencing after the appellant pleaded guilty to several counts. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the appellant's criminal activities, which included bribing a public official and making false statements. The court considered the severity of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the impact of his actions on the public and the integrity of the legal system.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing framework to apply, given the nature and gravity of the crimes committed. The court had to weigh the statutory provisions under the Crimes Act, particularly sections 178BB and 249B(2)(b), which pertain to bribery and making false statements. Additionally, the court had to consider mitigating and aggravating factors, including the appellant's previous convictions and the impact of his actions on the community. The court also needed to ensure that the sentence imposed reflected the seriousness of the offences and served as a deterrent to others who might consider similar conduct.

In determining the sentence, the court meticulously reviewed the evidence and submissions from both parties. The court noted the appellant's previous convictions and the significant breach of public trust inherent in his actions. The court emphasised the need for a sentence that not only punished the appellant but also served to deter future misconduct of a similar nature. After considering all relevant factors, the court concluded that a custodial sentence was necessary to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offences and to uphold public confidence in the legal system. The court ultimately imposed a sentence that balanced the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders