R v Tomich [2002] NSWCCA 175

R v Tomich [2002] NSWCCA 175

The sentencing judge imposed an impermissible global sentence, misdescribed the offences in the third group, and failed to deal correctly with the Form 1 offences under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Those errors affected the legality and structure of the sentences and required the appeals to be allowed, the sentences quashed, and the applicant resentenced. On resentencing, the Court balanced the objective seriousness of sustained fraud and breach of trust against the applicant's early admissions, guilty pleas, remorse, lack of prior convictions and difficult subjective circumstances, imposing effective head sentences totalling 4 years with an effective non-parole period of 2...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave, Appeal and Resentencing
Outcome
Time extended, leave to appeal granted, appeals allowed, sentences quashed, and the applicant resentenced.
Legal Topics
['global Sentencing' 'form 1 Offences' 'larceny as a Clerk' 'computer Data Offences' 'false Instrument' 'breach of Trust' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'specific and General Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['global Sentencing' 'form 1 Offences' 'larceny as a Clerk' 'computer Data Offences' 'false Instrument' 'breach of Trust' 'guilty Plea Discount' 'specific and General Deterrence']

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

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal Against Sentence; Sentence Appeal / Court of Criminal Appeal Decision on Leave, Appeal and Resentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for the applicant to seek leave to appeal against sentence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by imposing a global or group sentence on multiple offences.' 'Whether the sentencing judge complied with the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 when taking Form 1 offences into account.' 'Whether the offences in the third group were misdescribed or misunderstood in sentencing.' 'Whether the sentences should be quashed and the applicant resentenced.']

Ratio Decidendi

The sentencing judge imposed an impermissible global sentence, misdescribed the offences in the third group, and failed to deal correctly with the Form 1 offences under the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. Those errors affected the legality and structure of the sentences and required the appeals to be allowed, the sentences quashed, and the applicant resentenced. On resentencing, the Court balanced the objective seriousness of sustained fraud and breach of trust against the applicant's early admissions, guilty pleas, remorse, lack of prior convictions and difficult subjective circumstances, imposing effective head sentences totalling 4 years with an effective non-parole period of 2...

Court Disposition

Time extended, leave to appeal granted, appeals allowed, sentences quashed, and the applicant resentenced.

Orders

  • ['Extend the time within which the applicant may seek leave to appeal against sentences.' 'Leave to appeal against sentence granted.' 'Appeals allowed, sentences quashed.' 'On each of the two offences of larceny as a clerk of the Bank, being $1,000 on 14 July 1999 and $1,000 on 26 July 1999, the applicant is...