R v Pogson; R v Lapham; R v Martin [2012] NSWCCA 225

R v Pogson; R v Lapham; R v Martin [2012] NSWCCA 225

The statutory scheme did not exclude intensive correction orders for the respondents merely because their offences were white-collar crimes or because they were unlikely to reoffend; rehabilitation is a broad sentencing concept and the express statutory exclusions did not apply. Although the sentences for Pogson and Lapham were manifestly inadequate because their serious planned dishonesty required full-time custody, the Court exercised its residual discretion in these Crown appeals not to resentence them, having regard to the time served under and compliance with the intensive correction orders and the consequences already suffered. Martin's lesser criminality made an intensive...

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Crown Appeals Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Hearing of Appeals From Sentences Imposed in the District Court
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
['intensive Correction Orders' 'financial Crimes' 'false or Misleading Statements' 'prospectus Offences' 'general Deterrence' 'crown Sentence Appeals' 'manifest Inadequacy']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'corporations Law'] ['intensive Correction Orders' 'financial Crimes' 'false or Misleading Statements' 'prospectus Offences' 'general Deterrence' 'crown Sentence Appeals' 'manifest Inadequacy']

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

Crown Appeals Against Sentence / Court of Criminal Appeal Hearing of Appeals From Sentences Imposed in the District Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge erred by making intensive correction orders under s.7(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for the respondents.' 'Whether intensive correction orders are unavailable as a matter of law for offenders with no demonstrated need for rehabilitation or for white-collar offenders.' 'Whether the sentences served by way of intensive correction orders were manifestly inadequate.' 'Whether the residual discretion in Crown appeals should be exercised despite manifest inadequacy in the sentences of Pogson and Lapham.']

Ratio Decidendi

The statutory scheme did not exclude intensive correction orders for the respondents merely because their offences were white-collar crimes or because they were unlikely to reoffend; rehabilitation is a broad sentencing concept and the express statutory exclusions did not apply. Although the sentences for Pogson and Lapham were manifestly inadequate because their serious planned dishonesty required full-time custody, the Court exercised its residual discretion in these Crown appeals not to resentence them, having regard to the time served under and compliance with the intensive correction orders and the consequences already suffered. Martin's lesser criminality made an intensive...

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • ['The Crown appeal in each case is dismissed.']