Lee v R [2022] NSWDC 178

Lee v R [2022] NSWDC 178

The offence was serious and at least above mid-range objective seriousness because the appellant knowingly accepted and continued a medical internship despite not completing the required qualifications and never being registered, thereby creating risk to the public. The threshold for imprisonment in s 5 Crimes...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Criminal Sentencing Appeal / Appeal From Sydney Local Court on Severity
Outcome
Appeal allowed; conviction confirmed; intensive correction order varied; fine and professional costs confirmed.
Legal Topics
['intensive Correction Orders' 'unregistered Health Practitioner Claiming Qualification to Practise' 'general Deterrence' 'public Safety']
['criminal Law' 'sentencing' 'health Practitioner Regulation'] ['intensive Correction Orders' 'unregistered Health Practitioner Claiming Qualification to Practise' 'general Deterrence' 'public Safety']

Source-derived case record

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 Sentencing Appeal / Appeal From Sydney Local Court on Severity

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentence imposed by the Local Court was too severe.' 'Whether the threshold in s 5 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 for imprisonment was crossed.' 'What term of imprisonment by way of intensive correction order was appropriate for the offence contrary to cl 116(1)(d) Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (NSW) No 86a of 2009.']

Ratio Decidendi

The offence was serious and at least above mid-range objective seriousness because the appellant knowingly accepted and continued a medical internship despite not completing the required qualifications and never being registered, thereby creating risk to the public. The threshold for imprisonment in s 5 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 was crossed, but the Local Court's two-year intensive correction order was excessive when the appellant's early guilty plea, lack of prior offending, good character, remorse and personal circumstances were brought into account. The appropriate sentence was an 18-month intensive correction order, with the conviction, fine and professional costs confirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; conviction confirmed; intensive correction order varied; fine and professional costs confirmed.

Orders

  • ['Allow the appeal.' 'Confirm the conviction.' 'Vary the intensive correction order to one of 18 months to commence on 20 January 2022.' 'Confirm the fine of $10,000.' 'Confirm the orders for professional costs of $3,400.']