Edwards v R [2013] NSWCCA 54

Edwards v R [2013] NSWCCA 54

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because none of the applicant's grounds established sentencing error or a miscarriage of justice. The sentencing judge did not rely adversely on outstanding charges, was entitled to reject the asserted reliance on accounting advice, correctly treated the offending as dishonest planned conduct rather than a single reckless error, properly found no cooperation with law enforcement, took relevant delay into account, had no evidence to support alleged loss of profession as extra-curial punishment, made an open finding that rehabilitation prospects were reasonable, and did not err in assessing significant criminality or imposing a...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Before the Court of Criminal Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['dishonestly Obtaining a Financial Benefit by Deception' 'severity Appeal' 'alleged Incompetent Representation' 'reliance on Accounting Advice' 'delay in Prosecution' 'cooperation With Law Enforcement' 'extra Curial Punishment' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'objective Seriousness' 'custody and Recognizance Release Order']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'criminal Appeals'] ['dishonestly Obtaining a Financial Benefit by Deception' 'severity Appeal' 'alleged Incompetent Representation' 'reliance on Accounting Advice' 'delay in Prosecution' 'cooperation With Law Enforcement' 'extra Curial Punishment' 'prospects of Rehabilitation' 'objective Seriousness' 'custody and Recognizance Release Order']

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 Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Before the Court of Criminal Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether alleged incompetence of the applicant's legal representatives caused a miscarriage of justice in the sentencing proceedings." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred by rejecting or failing to give weight to alleged poor accounting advice and fiscal naivety.' 'Whether the offending could be characterised as one act of recklessness or error.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to take account of cooperation with law enforcement agencies.' 'Whether the sentencing judge failed to give proper weight to delay between the offences, investigation and charge.' "Whether loss of the applicant's security industry work or licence should have been treated as extra-curial punishment." "Whether the finding that the applicant's prospects of rehabilitation were reasonable miscarried." 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in assessing the degree of criminality and objective seriousness.' 'Whether a custodial sentence was unjust or unsafe in the circumstances.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed because none of the applicant's grounds established sentencing error or a miscarriage of justice. The sentencing judge did not rely adversely on outstanding charges, was entitled to reject the asserted reliance on accounting advice, correctly treated the offending as dishonest planned conduct rather than a single reckless error, properly found no cooperation with law enforcement, took relevant delay into account, had no evidence to support alleged loss of profession as extra-curial punishment, made an open finding that rehabilitation prospects were reasonable, and did not err in assessing significant criminality or imposing a...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to appeal against sentence.' 'Dismiss the appeal.']