REGINA v David FIELDS [2002] NSWCCA 523
The original sentence was manifestly inadequate given the planning involved, the serious breach of trust by the employee, the large sums involved, the respondent's criminal history, and his commission of the offence while serving sentences for dishonesty. The discount for the guilty plea was excessive, and insufficient weight was given to general deterrence and the objective seriousness of the offending.
- Parties
- Applicant: Regina; Respondent: David Fields
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 18 December 2002
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Crown Appeal Against Sentence
- Outcome
- Crown appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced
- Legal Topics
- Sentence Appeal, Larceny, Crown Appeal, Inadequacy of Sentence
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Regina
Applicant
David Fields
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Crown Appeal Against Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly inadequate
- 2 Whether the sentencing judge erred in not setting a non-parole period pursuant to s 44(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Ratio Decidendi
The original sentence was manifestly inadequate given the planning involved, the serious breach of trust by the employee, the large sums involved, the respondent's criminal history, and his commission of the offence while serving sentences for dishonesty. The discount for the guilty plea was excessive, and insufficient weight was given to general deterrence and the objective seriousness of the offending.
Court Disposition
Crown appeal allowed; sentence quashed; respondent resentenced
Orders
- Allow the Crown appeal.
- Quash the sentence of imprisonment.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment