Legal Research
Cases
The Queen v Mossman

The Queen v Mossman

Case [2017] NTCCA 6 24 July 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

CITATION:The Queen v Mossman [2017] NTCCA 6
PARTIES:THE QUEEN

v
MOSSMAN, Paul Scott

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CRIMINAL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:No. CA 1 of 2017 (21532632)
DELIVERED:  24 July 2017
HEARING DATE:  29 May 2017
JUDGMENT OF:  Grant CJ, Southwood and Hiley JJ
APPEALED FROM:  Barr J

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROPERTY OFFENCES – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT

Corrupt receipt of a benefit for the manner in which the appellant carried out his powers, duties or functions – employee of Minister – whether sentence manifestly inadequate having regard to the circumstances of the offending and the appellant – whether unjustifiable disparity with sentence imposed on co-offender for like offending – appeal dismissed.
Criminal Code (NT) s 236, s 414(1A)

Bara v The Queen [2016] NTCCA 5, Bodmin Case (1869) XX TLR 989, Delaney v The Queen (2013) 230 A Crim R 581, DPP (Cth) v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1, Everett v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 295, Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462, Griffiths v The Queen (1977) 137 CLR 293, Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520, HM Advocate v Dick (1901) 3F (Ct of Sess) 59, House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499, Lacey v Attorney-General (Qld) (2011) 242 CLR 573, Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606, Pastras v The Queen (1993) 65 A Crim R 584, Pecora v The Queen [1980] VR 499, Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295, R v BJW (2000) 112 A Crim R 1, R v Delcaro (1989) 41 A Crim R 33, R v Hitanaya [2010] NTCCA 3, R v Jamieson [1988] VR 879, R v Lo (2007) 174 A Crim R 541, R v Nath (1994) 74 A Crim R 115, R v Nguyen [2010] NSWCCA 331, R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212, R v Radloff (1996) 6 Tas R 99, R v Riley (2006) 161 A Crim R 414, R v Rivkin (2004) 59 NSWLR 284, R v Smith (2000) 116 A Crim R 447, R v Vaughan (1796) 4 Burr 2494, R v Wilson (2011) 30 NTLR 51, Steer & Ors v R (2000) 171 ALR 463, The Queen v Renwick & Johnston [2013] NTCCA 3, Woodward v Maltby [1959] VR 794, referred to.
Fox & Freiberg's sentencing: state and federal law in Victoria (Third Edition), Law Book Company, 2014.
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:D Morters
RespondentI Read SC
Solicitors:
Appellant:Director of Public Prosecutions
RespondentNorthern Territory Legal Aid Commission
Judgment category classification: A
Number of pages: 39

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN

The Queen v Mossman [2017] NTCCA 6
No. CA 1 of 2017 (21532632)
BETWEEN:
THE QUEEN
Appellant

AND:
PAUL SCOTT MOSSMAN
Respondent

CORAM:GRANT CJ, SOUTHWOOD and HILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 24 July 2017)
THE…

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 The Queen v Mossman

Details

AGLC: R v Mossman [2017] NTCCA 6
Case: [2017] NTCCA 6
Decision Date: 24 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queen v Mossman concerned an appeal against sentence by the appellant, who had been convicted of corruptly receiving a benefit in connection with the manner in which he carried out his powers, duties, or functions as an employee of a Minister. The appeal was heard by Grant CJ, Southwood and Hiley JJ.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, having regard to the circumstances of the offending and the appellant, and whether there was an unjustifiable disparity between the sentence imposed on the appellant and that imposed on a co-offender for similar offending.

The court dismissed the appeal. In doing so, it considered the gravity of the offending and the appellant's role within the ministerial office. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly inadequate and that there was no unjustifiable disparity when compared to the sentence received by the co-offender, implying that the differences in their respective circumstances or roles justified the differing sentences.

Orders