Rosenberg v R

Rosenberg v R was a criminal case heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Mr Rosenberg was convicted of a number of fraud offences in relation to his role in the under-reporting of gas usage by E-Gas. The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Mr Rosenberg, including whether a sentence of reparation was appropriate and, if so, the amount. Mr Rosenberg's culpability was equal to that of his co-offender, Mr Hunt, but the disparity in their sentences was due to Mr Rosenberg's ability to pay reparation. The court had to consider the amount of reparation, taking into account the loss caused by the offending, and any offers, agreements, responses, measures or actions taken in relation to the loss.

The court found that Mr Rosenberg's offending was aggravated by the extent of the fraud, its duration, its sustained, deliberate and systematic nature, the obvious degree of premeditation, and the associated damage to industry functionality that resulted in the breakdown of a system that depended on trust. The court was bound to consider a sentence of reparation under s 32(1) of the Sentencing Act, and did so, although it did not set out the specific basis for the calculation of the reparation amount. The court ordered Mr Rosenberg to pay reparation of $400,000, which was less than the amount of the settlement of the civil claims. The court also took into account the fact that Mr Rosenberg had filed a declaration of assets and liabilities, while Mr Hunt, who was a bankrupt, had not. The court found that the reparation order did not result in undue hardship for Mr Rosenberg or his dependants, and that there were no special circumstances that would have made it inappropriate.

The court ordered that Mr Rosenberg pay reparation of $400,000, and that he be imprisoned for a total of six years and three months, with a non-parole period of three years and nine months. The court also ordered that Mr Rosenberg be disqualified from being a director of a corporation for a period of six years from the date of his release from prison. The court found that the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances, taking into account the aggravating features of the offending, Mr Rosenberg's culpability, and his ability to pay reparation. The court also noted that the reparation order was less than the amount of the settlement of the civil claims, and that it did not result in undue hardship for Mr Rosenberg or his dependants.