Larkin v NSW DPP [2007] NSWDC 80
The appellant knowingly made false statements on oath during examination and could properly be convicted under s330 of the Crimes Act, as the Corporations Act does not exclude concurrent State offences, and there was no basis for staying the prosecution as an abuse of process.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 19 March 2007
- Procedural Posture
- Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed; conviction confirmed; sentence varied
- Legal Topics
- ['making False Statement on Oath' 'interaction Between Commonwealth and State Offences' 'abuse of Process']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Conviction and Sentence
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the appellant knowingly made a false statement on oath contrary to s.330 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)' "Whether the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) 'covers the field' and precludes prosecution under the Crimes Act for the conduct" 'Whether prosecution should be stayed as an abuse of process']
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant knowingly made false statements on oath during examination and could properly be convicted under s330 of the Crimes Act, as the Corporations Act does not exclude concurrent State offences, and there was no basis for staying the prosecution as an abuse of process.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed; conviction confirmed; sentence varied
Orders
- ["Appellant's appeal dismissed" 'Conviction confirmed' "Magistrate's sentence set aside" 'Appellant sentenced to 12 months imprisonment, non-parole period of 6 months, parole period of 6 months' 'Sentence suspended for the whole period conditional upon good behaviour bond according to s12 of the Crimes (Sentencing...
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