Wade v R [2011] NSWDC 206

Wade v R [2011] NSWDC 206

The appellant had suffered extra-curial punishment through the loss of his career as a Senior Prison Officer, loss of comparable career opportunities, financial disadvantage, and loss of future public service or trust-based employment prospects. The Magistrate erred by affording that loss no weight on the basis that it resulted from the appellant's own abuse of office. The sentences were also affected by a mathematical error. The appeal was therefore allowed and the head sentence and non-parole period were reduced by three months to account for the unacknowledged extra-curial punishment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 April 2011
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Appeal Against Severity of Sentences Passed by the Local Court at Campbelltown on 24 February 2011
Outcome
Appeal allowed; sentences passed by the Local Court at Campbelltown on 24 February 2011 set aside; appellant re-sentenced.
Legal Topics
['extra Curial Punishment' 'mitigation' 'loss of Employment and Career' 'corruptly Receiving a Benefit' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'false Evidence to the Independent Commission Against Corruption']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['extra Curial Punishment' 'mitigation' 'loss of Employment and Career' 'corruptly Receiving a Benefit' 'supply of Prohibited Drug' 'false Evidence to the Independent Commission Against Corruption']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Appeal Against Severity of Sentences Passed by the Local Court at Campbelltown on 24 February 2011

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the appellant's loss of his job and career as a senior prison officer should be taken into account as a mitigating factor in sentence." 'Whether the Local Court sentences should be reduced because extra-curial punishment was not acknowledged.' 'Whether a mathematical sentencing error concerning the sentences for giving false evidence to the ICAC should be corrected.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant had suffered extra-curial punishment through the loss of his career as a Senior Prison Officer, loss of comparable career opportunities, financial disadvantage, and loss of future public service or trust-based employment prospects. The Magistrate erred by affording that loss no weight on the basis that it resulted from the appellant's own abuse of office. The sentences were also affected by a mathematical error. The appeal was therefore allowed and the head sentence and non-parole period were reduced by three months to account for the unacknowledged extra-curial punishment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; sentences passed by the Local Court at Campbelltown on 24 February 2011 set aside; appellant re-sentenced.

Orders

  • ['On each of the charges of supplying a prohibited drug on 25 January 2010 and corruptly obtaining a benefit on 25 January 2010, the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment with a non-parole period of six months commencing on 15 April 2011 and expiring on 14 October 2011, and a further period of imprisonment of six...