Raine v R [2020] NSWCCA 32

Raine v R [2020] NSWCCA 32

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the four proposed grounds had any prospect of success. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the applicant was the prime mover and that Talanoa Raine was a lesser partner or follower, particularly because the applicant designed, instigated and implemented the fraud, offended for longer, obtained a larger amount, abused his Tabcorp access and position of trust, and had advanced that very analysis on sentence. The sentencing judge's findings that the offending was sophisticated and that the applicant's role involved significant skills, access and trust were open and disclosed no error.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Criminal Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of NSW
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'dishonestly Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception' 'defrauding Employer' 'parity' 'objective Seriousness' 'sophistication of Offending' 'abuse of Position of Trust' 'role of Co Offender']
['criminal Law' 'criminal Procedure' 'sentencing'] ['leave to Appeal Against Sentence' 'dishonestly Obtaining Financial Advantage by Deception' 'defrauding Employer' 'parity' 'objective Seriousness' 'sophistication of Offending' 'abuse of Position of Trust' 'role of Co Offender']

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 Leave to Appeal Against Sentence / Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal From Sentence Imposed in the District Court of NSW

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentencing judge incorrectly assessed the role of the applicant by finding that the co-offender was a lesser partner or follower.' 'Whether the applicant had a justifiable sense of grievance because his sentence and that of the co-offender lacked parity given their respective roles in the offence.' 'Whether the sentencing judge erred in determining the objective criminality as sophisticated without taking into account indicia of lack of sophistication.' "Whether the sentencing judge mischaracterised the level of responsibility of the applicant's position as an employee."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because none of the four proposed grounds had any prospect of success. The sentencing judge was entitled to find that the applicant was the prime mover and that Talanoa Raine was a lesser partner or follower, particularly because the applicant designed, instigated and implemented the fraud, offended for longer, obtained a larger amount, abused his Tabcorp access and position of trust, and had advanced that very analysis on sentence. The sentencing judge's findings that the offending was sophisticated and that the applicant's role involved significant skills, access and trust were open and disclosed no error.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.']