R v Oberg ; R v Peters [2019] NSWDC 697

R v Oberg ; R v Peters [2019] NSWDC 697

The offenders' conduct involved knowingly using valueless cheques to obtain substantial financial advantages or evade liabilities. The serious joint offending, and in Mr Oberg's case additional high-value offending, was organised, premeditated, calculated and committed over a prolonged period. The Court rejected the asserted investment scheme, found no remorse or meaningful acceptance of responsibility, and considered deterrence, punishment, totality and proportionality to require full-time imprisonment. Special circumstances justified reduced non-parole periods, including first imprisonment and age for Mr Peters, and health and sentence-structuring considerations for Mr Oberg.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence for Fraud Offences / Sentencing After Jury Verdicts of Guilty
Outcome
Mark Arthur Peters was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years. Colin James Oberg was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 9 years with a non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months.
Legal Topics
['fraud' 'dishonestly Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception' 'totality' 'parity' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'aggregate Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['fraud' 'dishonestly Obtaining a Financial Advantage by Deception' 'totality' 'parity' 'special Circumstances' 'non Parole Period' 'aggregate Sentence']

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 for Fraud Offences / Sentencing After Jury Verdicts of Guilty

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['What sentences should be imposed on Mark Arthur Peters and Colin James Oberg for the fraud offences found proved by the jury.' 'Whether the offending was objectively serious, organised, premeditated and calculated.' 'Whether full-time imprisonment, an intensive correction order, or another sentencing option was appropriate for Mr Peters.' "How the principles of totality, parity and proportionality should apply, including in light of Mr Oberg's existing sentence for other offending." 'Whether special circumstances justified varying the statutory ratio between the non-parole period and balance of term.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offenders' conduct involved knowingly using valueless cheques to obtain substantial financial advantages or evade liabilities. The serious joint offending, and in Mr Oberg's case additional high-value offending, was organised, premeditated, calculated and committed over a prolonged period. The Court rejected the asserted investment scheme, found no remorse or meaningful acceptance of responsibility, and considered deterrence, punishment, totality and proportionality to require full-time imprisonment. Special circumstances justified reduced non-parole periods, including first imprisonment and age for Mr Peters, and health and sentence-structuring considerations for Mr Oberg.

Court Disposition

Mark Arthur Peters was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years with a non-parole period of 2 years. Colin James Oberg was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 9 years with a non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months.

Orders

  • ['Mark Arthur Peters in respect of counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 15 was found guilty by a jury and convicted.' 'Mark Arthur Peters was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years commencing 1 November 2019 and expiring on 31 October 2023.' 'A non-parole period of 2 years was set for Mark Arthur...