Citation: R v Peter Frederick Clark [2001] NSWSC 656
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales
Date: 25 June 2001
Judge(s): Dowd J
Background
The offender was a self-represented litigant with a matter listed before the Taree District Court in February 2000. On 23 February 2000, he requested a private meeting with the presiding judge, Christie DCJ, ostensibly to raise a sensitive matter. That meeting took place in chambers and was attended by the judge's associate, a solicitor from the Director of Public Prosecutions, and a court officer.
During the meeting, the offender told the judge that he had been informed by a named police constable that the judge was corrupt and took bribes, and that the judge's wife ran a hotel used to launder money for organised crime. The Crown alleged these statements were made with the intention of causing the judge to disqualify himself from hearing the offender's pending appeal. The judge did in fact disqualify himself, though the court noted that outcome was not an element of the offence.
A jury found the offender guilty of doing an act with intent to pervert the course of justice, contrary to s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900. The matter then came before Dowd J for sentencing.
Legal Issues
- Whether a sentence of imprisonment, rather than a community-based alternative, was required given the seriousness of the offence and the purposes of sentencing
- Whether periodic detention was an appropriate form of imprisonment in the circumstances
- How to weigh the offender's subjective circumstances, including mental health issues, family responsibilities, and contrition, against the objective seriousness of the offence
Decision
Dowd J was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the offender had made the statements with the intention of preventing the judge from presiding over his appeal. The jury's guilty verdict was confirmed. The offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment.
On sentencing, the court acknowledged the offender's significant subjective circumstances: a history of major depression and a diagnosed personality disorder, the effects of prescribed medication on his judgment, a serious head injury he had sustained, contrition, good character generally, and his role as an involved parent to his children. The Pre-Sentence Report assessed him as suitable for periodic detention and noted progress in accepting responsibility for his conduct.
Dowd J concluded that a sentence of imprisonment was nevertheless required. The court found that no non-custodial alternative would adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence or meet the needs of general and specific deterrence. However, taking into account the offender's personal circumstances, the court determined that periodic detention was the appropriate form, as it would allow the offender to continue supporting his children, pursue rehabilitation, and maintain his medical treatment.
The court imposed a fixed term of 12 months periodic detention, declining to find special circumstances that would have extended any supervision period. Dowd J reasoned that lengthening the parole period would have required a longer head sentence that would not be proportionate to the circumstances of the offence.
Orders Made
- The offender was convicted and sentenced to 12 months periodic detention, to be served at the Tomago Periodic Detention Centre, commencing 13 July 2001 and concluding 12 July 2002.
Key Takeaways
- An act intended to cause a judge to disqualify himself from presiding over a matter constitutes an act with intent to pervert the course of justice under s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900, regardless of whether the judge actually steps aside.
- Under s 5 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, a court must consider all alternatives before imposing imprisonment; here, the Supreme Court found that the gravity of the offence and deterrence requirements ruled out non-custodial options.
- Periodic detention was available as a form of imprisonment capable of reflecting the seriousness of the offence while accommodating an offender's rehabilitative needs, family responsibilities, and medical circumstances.
- Where a fixed term of periodic detention is imposed, a court may decline to find special circumstances to extend supervision if doing so would require an unduly long head sentence disproportionate to the offence.
- Significant subjective factors, including mental health conditions, medication-related impairment of judgment, contrition, and good character, can influence the form of a custodial sentence even where a non-custodial sentence is not appropriate.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 319
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 5, 10
Cases:
- R v Rushby (1997) 1 NSWLR 594