GREALISH, Peter v R [2013] NSWCCA 336

GREALISH, Peter v R [2013] NSWCCA 336

The seriousness of the s 107 offence meant that full-time imprisonment was the only available sentencing outcome and no lesser sentence for that offence was warranted. However, the indicative sentences of 9 months' imprisonment for each of the s 178BB(1) offences were manifestly excessive, particularly because the first such offence was at the low end of objective seriousness, involved little financial benefit, and was committed by an offender with favourable subjective circumstances. The sentencing judge also erred in treating the applicant as having a greater obligation than Behman not to give false evidence by reason of being an officer of the Supreme Court and Federal Court, but that...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence Imposed in the District Court; Re Sentencing
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; District Court sentence quashed; offender re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['sentence Appeal' 'obtain Financial Advantage by False or Misleading Statement' 'giving False Evidence to the Police Integrity Commission' 'aggregate Sentence' 'manifest Excess' 'full Time Custody' 'good Behaviour Bond' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['sentence Appeal' 'obtain Financial Advantage by False or Misleading Statement' 'giving False Evidence to the Police Integrity Commission' 'aggregate Sentence' 'manifest Excess' 'full Time Custody' 'good Behaviour Bond' 'non Parole Period' 'special Circumstances']

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 Imposed in the District Court; Re Sentencing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge failed to properly consider whether a sentence other than full-time custody would be appropriate.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the objective criminality of the s 178BB(1) offences was aggravated by the applicant being an officer of the Supreme Court and Federal Court and using administrative knowledge and experience.' 'Whether the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive because the indicative sentences for the s 178BB(1) offences were excessive.' 'Whether the indicative sentence for the s 107 offence failed to reflect objective and subjective distinctions between the applicant and Tarek Behman.']

Ratio Decidendi

The seriousness of the s 107 offence meant that full-time imprisonment was the only available sentencing outcome and no lesser sentence for that offence was warranted. However, the indicative sentences of 9 months' imprisonment for each of the s 178BB(1) offences were manifestly excessive, particularly because the first such offence was at the low end of objective seriousness, involved little financial benefit, and was committed by an offender with favourable subjective circumstances. The sentencing judge also erred in treating the applicant as having a greater obligation than Behman not to give false evidence by reason of being an officer of the Supreme Court and Federal Court, but that...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted; appeal upheld; District Court sentence quashed; offender re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal upheld.' 'The sentence imposed by the District Court on 26 April 2013 be quashed.' 'In relation to the offence committed by the offender pursuant to s 178BB(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 on or about 6 December 2006, pursuant to s 9(1) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999,...