R v Reddie; R v Linnen [2017] NSWDC 228

R v Reddie; R v Linnen [2017] NSWDC 228

The objective gravity of the offending, including the substantial sums involved, repeated dishonest conduct, greed rather than need, breach of trust by Ms Reddie, her offending while on bonds for similar conduct, and Mr Linnen's high degree of recklessness involving an enormous sum, required full-time custodial sentences. The sentences were moderated by early guilty pleas, parity, Ms Reddie's mental health and background, Mr Linnen's lesser role and lack of evidence of involvement in the substantive fraud, and special circumstances arising from each offender's first time in custody and rehabilitative needs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence / Sentencing Following Guilty Pleas
Outcome
Custodial sentences imposed on both offenders.
Legal Topics
['dishonestly Obtain a Financial Advantage' 'recklessly Deal With the Proceeds of Crime' 'breach of Trust' 'sentencing' 'breach of Bonds' 'general Deterrence' 'personal Deterrence' 'parity' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law'] ['dishonestly Obtain a Financial Advantage' 'recklessly Deal With the Proceeds of Crime' 'breach of Trust' 'sentencing' 'breach of Bonds' 'general Deterrence' 'personal Deterrence' 'parity' 'special Circumstances']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentence / Sentencing Following Guilty Pleas

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentence should be imposed on Lauren Marie Reddie for three counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage and for admitted breaches of bonds.' 'What sentence should be imposed on Scott Linnen for recklessly dealing with the proceeds of crime.' 'Whether full-time custody was required for each offender.' 'How parity, guilty pleas, objective gravity, breach of trust, prior bonds, mental health, first time in custody, general deterrence and personal deterrence affected sentence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The objective gravity of the offending, including the substantial sums involved, repeated dishonest conduct, greed rather than need, breach of trust by Ms Reddie, her offending while on bonds for similar conduct, and Mr Linnen's high degree of recklessness involving an enormous sum, required full-time custodial sentences. The sentences were moderated by early guilty pleas, parity, Ms Reddie's mental health and background, Mr Linnen's lesser role and lack of evidence of involvement in the substantive fraud, and special circumstances arising from each offender's first time in custody and rehabilitative needs.

Court Disposition

Custodial sentences imposed on both offenders.

Orders

  • ["For Ms Reddie's bond breach matters, fixed terms of imprisonment commencing 2 June 2017: H567175881 three months imprisonment, 567175882 one month imprisonment, and 567175883 two months imprisonment, to be served concurrently." "For Ms Reddie's matters on the indictment, an aggregate sentence consisting of a...