REGINA v O'DRISCOLL [2003] NSWCCA 281

REGINA v O'DRISCOLL [2003] NSWCCA 281

Although the sentencing judge had referred to the structuring conduct as part of the fraud and had treated it as one aspect of the Applicant's improper and illegal conduct, that error was not a material element in the sentencing discretion. The two fraud offences were objectively grave, involved substantial deception and revenue loss, and justified five-year sentences with partial accumulation. The Court was not satisfied under s6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 that any other sentence was warranted in law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 October 2003
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal After Convictions on Financial Transaction Reports Act Charges Were Quashed
Outcome
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['defrauding the Commonwealth' 'revenue Fraud' 'structuring Transactions' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'totality Principle' 'general Deterrence']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing'] ['defrauding the Commonwealth' 'revenue Fraud' 'structuring Transactions' 'appeal Against Sentence' 'totality Principle' 'general Deterrence']

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 Sentence Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Sentence in the Court of Criminal Appeal After Convictions on Financial Transaction Reports Act Charges Were Quashed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether sentences for two offences of defrauding the Commonwealth should be reduced because the sentencing judge took into account conduct underlying structuring convictions that were later quashed.' 'Whether, applying s6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912, some other sentence was warranted in law.' 'Whether the partial accumulation of the two sentences for the s29D offences offended the principle of totality.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the sentencing judge had referred to the structuring conduct as part of the fraud and had treated it as one aspect of the Applicant's improper and illegal conduct, that error was not a material element in the sentencing discretion. The two fraud offences were objectively grave, involved substantial deception and revenue loss, and justified five-year sentences with partial accumulation. The Court was not satisfied under s6(3) of the Criminal Appeal Act 1912 that any other sentence was warranted in law.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal granted.' 'Appeal dismissed.']