Michael Robert Holloway v R [2017] NSWCCA 17

Michael Robert Holloway v R [2017] NSWCCA 17

The convictions were not inconsistent with the acquittals because the jury could have doubted that the applicant knew or believed BHW's interests were imperilled for the purposes of the s 176A counts, while still being satisfied that the applicant intentionally or recklessly obtained a temporary financial advantage by deception from the company for the purposes of s 192E(1)(b). The sentence was not manifestly excessive because the offending involved intentional, planned dishonesty over ten months, abuse of a position of trust, an unrecoverable financial advantage of $269,291.00, and ten offences each carrying a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment; the aggregate sentence and...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.
Legal Topics
['fraud' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'dishonesty' 'financial Advantage by Deception' 'manifest Excess' 'aggregate Sentence']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['fraud' 'inconsistent Verdicts' 'dishonesty' 'financial Advantage by Deception' 'manifest Excess' '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 Appeal Against Conviction and Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Appeal From the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the guilty verdicts on counts 70 to 79 under s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act were inconsistent with the acquittals on counts 1 to 69 under s 176A of the Crimes Act.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence, including a non-parole period of two years and six months with a balance of term of 18 months, was manifestly excessive.']

Ratio Decidendi

The convictions were not inconsistent with the acquittals because the jury could have doubted that the applicant knew or believed BHW's interests were imperilled for the purposes of the s 176A counts, while still being satisfied that the applicant intentionally or recklessly obtained a temporary financial advantage by deception from the company for the purposes of s 192E(1)(b). The sentence was not manifestly excessive because the offending involved intentional, planned dishonesty over ten months, abuse of a position of trust, an unrecoverable financial advantage of $269,291.00, and ten offences each carrying a maximum penalty of ten years imprisonment; the aggregate sentence and...

Court Disposition

Appeal against conviction dismissed; leave to appeal against sentence granted; appeal against sentence dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Appeal against conviction dismissed.' 'Leave to appeal against the sentence is granted.' 'The appeal is dismissed.']