AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
2
Supreme Court 20 December 2002

R v Patison

[2002] NSWSC 1248

DrugsFraud & dishonestyPublic order & justice offences
SENTENCING POLICE CORRUPTION BRIBERY PERVERT COURSE OF JUSTICE, ETC

Citation: R v Patison [2002] NSWSC 1248
Court: Supreme Court of New South Wales (Common Law Division, Criminal)
Date: 20 December 2002
Judge(s): Dunford J

Background

The offender, David Phillip Patison, was a Detective Senior Constable based at Manly Police Station. He pleaded guilty to ten counts spanning acts with intent to pervert the course of justice, soliciting corrupt rewards, soliciting and giving bribes, and supplying prohibited drugs. He also asked the court to take into account a further 14 offences on Form 1, including receiving bribes, hindering an investigation into a serious offence, stealing from a dwelling, and larceny.

The agreed facts disclosed a persistent, organised course of corruption extending over almost a full year. Patison and his associates failed to seize or fully disclose drugs and cash found during search warrant executions, solicited and received bribes from offenders, shared those bribes with fellow officers, reduced the recorded quantity of drugs to obtain lesser charges and bail outcomes, facilitated contact between drug dealers, and allowed a known heroin supplier to continue operating in exchange for weekly payments. The conduct was captured on video and by legally authorised listening devices worn by an undercover police officer.

Patison had served in the NSW Police Service since 1979, including stints in the Sexual Assault Unit, the Armed Hold-Up Squad, and various drug units. He was suspended in December 2000. He was 43 years old at sentencing, married, and had a teenage son.

  • What sentence was appropriate for a police officer who pleaded guilty to a sustained course of serious corruption, including bribery, perverting the course of justice, and drug supply?
  • How should the sentencing discretion be exercised where mitigating factors (guilty plea, remorse, cooperation with authorities) operated alongside serious aggravating circumstances (breach of public trust, duration and premeditation of the conduct)?
  • How should multiple concurrent and accumulative terms be structured to reflect the overall criminality without resulting in an aggregate sentence that was disproportionate?

Decision

Dunford J characterised the offending as a complete abdication of the prisoner's professional responsibilities and a betrayal of public trust. The court observed that police corruption of this kind brings the entire Police Service into disrepute, hampers honest officers, and strikes at the heart of the justice system. The court noted with particular concern that such conduct had continued despite the Wood Royal Commission of 1994-95 and the extensive public effort to reform the Service that followed.

The court acknowledged several mitigating factors. Patison pleaded guilty, expressed genuine remorse, and provided assistance to investigators that was assessed as truthful and reliable, including disclosures of matters not previously known to authorities. The court accepted that cultural pressures within certain parts of the Service contributed to his involvement, and that he genuinely feared professional ostracism for refusing to participate. A psychologist's report was considered, and the court was satisfied that Patison was unlikely to reoffend.

Despite those mitigating factors, the court held that the serious nature of police corruption, and in particular bribery, demanded significant custodial terms. The court applied the principle from R v Pangallo that bribery strikes at the very heart of the justice system and must be severely punished when detected. The court structured the sentences in three concurrent groups, with each group partly accumulating on the last, reflecting the fact that distinct sets of victims and transactions were involved.

The aggregate sentence amounted to seven years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years. The earliest date for release on parole was fixed at 9 December 2007. All sentences were backdated to 10 December 2002, the day Patison went into custody.

Orders Made

  • Count 2 (solicit bribe): Fixed term of 3 years, commencing 10 December 2002, expiring 9 December 2005.
  • Count 3 (pervert course of justice): Fixed term of 3 years, commencing 10 December 2002, expiring 9 December 2005.
  • Count 4 (pervert course of justice): 4 years imprisonment, commencing 10 December 2002, expiring 9 December 2006; non-parole period of 3 years expiring 9 December 2005.
  • Count 10 (solicit bribe): Fixed term of 3 years, commencing 10 December 2002, expiring 9 December 2005.
  • Counts 2, 3, 4, and 10 are concurrent with each other.
  • Count 1 (pervert course of justice): Fixed term of 4 years, commencing 10 December 2003, expiring 9 December 2007.
  • Count 5 (solicit bribe): Fixed term of 3 years, commencing 10 December 2003, expiring 9 December 2006.
  • Count 6 (supply prohibited drug): 5 years imprisonment, commencing 10 December 2003, expiring 9 December 2008; non-parole period of 3 years expiring 9 December 2006.
  • Counts 1, 5, and 6 are concurrent with each other and partly concurrent/partly accumulative on counts 2, 3, 4, and 10.
  • Count 7 (solicit corrupt reward): Fixed term of 3 years, commencing 10 December 2004, expiring 9 December 2007.
  • Count 8 (solicit corrupt reward): Fixed term of 3 years, commencing 10 December 2004, expiring 9 December 2007.
  • Count 9 (supply prohibited drug): 5 years imprisonment, commencing 10 December 2004, expiring 9 December 2009; non-parole period of 3 years expiring 9 December 2007.
  • Counts 7, 8, and 9 are concurrent with each other and partly concurrent/partly accumulative on all earlier counts.
  • Aggregate sentence: 7 years imprisonment with a 5-year non-parole period; earliest parole eligibility 9 December 2007.

Key Takeaways

  • Bribery by a police officer was treated by the Supreme Court as an offence that strikes at the very heart of the justice system, warranting significant custodial penalties even where mitigating factors were present.
  • A guilty plea, genuine remorse, and meaningful cooperation with investigators were recognised as mitigating factors, but they did not substantially displace the need for general deterrence in cases of sustained police corruption.
  • Where multiple counts arise from distinct transactions involving different victims, a structured combination of concurrent and accumulative sentences can reflect the overall criminality without producing a disproportionate aggregate term.
  • The fact that similar misconduct had continued in the NSW Police Service after the Wood Royal Commission was treated as an aggravating contextual consideration, reinforcing the need for strong deterrent sentences.
  • Cultural or peer pressure within a corrupt unit was considered as background context for the offending, but it did not constitute a complete excuse; the court found that, absent detection, the conduct would have continued indefinitely.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), ss 21A, 32, 44
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 249B, 319
- Police Service Act 1990 (NSW), ss 7, 200
- Drug Misuse and Trafficking Act 1985 (NSW), ss 25, 32

Cases:
- R v Pangallo (1991) 56 A Crim R 441
- Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610
- R v Gardiner [2002] NSWCCA 209
- R v Dougan (NSWCCA, 2 July 1987)
- R v Nomchong (NSWCCA, 13 May 1993)
- R v Hilder (NSWCCA, 13 May 1993)
- R v Taouk (1993) 65 A Crim R 387
- R v Irwin [1999] NSWCA 361
- R v Simpson (2001) NSWLR 704
- R v Capar [2002] NSWCCA 517