Heather Kathleen Power v Regina [2002] NSWCCA 244

Heather Kathleen Power v Regina [2002] NSWCCA 244

The sentences of five years fixed term without non-parole periods were manifestly excessive given the applicant's strong subjective features and mitigating factors. Sentences for the most serious offences in 2000 were appropriate, but the non-parole period of four years was excessive in light of the totality and special circumstances. The non-parole period should be reduced to three years for relevant counts to better reflect established sentencing policy for major frauds involving first-time offenders of prior good character.

Parties
Applicant: Heather Kathleen Power; Respondent: Regina
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Sentence Appeal
Outcome
Appeals allowed in part; sentences varied as to non-parole periods
Legal Topics
Sentencing, Fraud, Abuse of Trust, Appeal Against Sentence, White Collar Crime
Criminal Law Sentencing Fraud Abuse of Trust Appeal Against Sentence White Collar Crime

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heather Kathleen Power

Applicant

Regina

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Sentence Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentences imposed for fraud were manifestly excessive
  2. 2 Whether the sentencing judge gave appropriate weight to mitigating circumstances including prior good character, plea of guilty, remorse, and cooperation
  3. 3 Proper application of sentencing principles and statutory requirements for non-parole periods

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences of five years fixed term without non-parole periods were manifestly excessive given the applicant's strong subjective features and mitigating factors. Sentences for the most serious offences in 2000 were appropriate, but the non-parole period of four years was excessive in light of the totality and special circumstances. The non-parole period should be reduced to three years for relevant counts to better reflect established sentencing policy for major frauds involving first-time offenders of prior good character.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in part; sentences varied as to non-parole periods

Orders

  • Leave to appeal granted.
  • Appeals allowed in part.