AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 12 July 2007

R v Hood

[2007] NSWDC 157

Public order & justice offences
CRIMINAL LAW SENTENCE AFTER TRIAL

Citation: R v Hood [2007] NSWDC 157
Court: NSW District Court
Date: 12 July 2007
Judge(s): Nield DCJ

Background

The offender was a former jockey and horse trainer who appeared before an examiner of the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) on 26 May 2005. The examination concerned his knowledge of a criminal network based in Sydney. During that examination, the offender was questioned about international money transfers conducted under a false name, and he denied involvement.

A jury found the offender guilty on both counts of giving false evidence to the ACC examiner. The false evidence related specifically to his denial that he had conducted two bank transactions and that he had signed the relevant documents. Sentencing proceeded in July 2007 following the January 2007 trial.

The offender had prior offending on his record, including convictions entered in November 2006 for supplying a prohibited drug (MDMA) on two occasions in 2004. He had been on bail for those drug supply offences at the time he gave the false evidence to the ACC examiner in May 2005.

  • What sentence was appropriate for two offences of knowingly giving false evidence to an ACC examiner under s 33(1) of the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth)?
  • Whether the sentences for the two offences should be served concurrently, consecutively, or partly concurrently and partly consecutively.
  • Whether the mandatory consideration under s 19AC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to order release on recognizance applied, given the aggregate sentence did not exceed three years.

Decision

His Honour sentenced the offender on both counts after considering relevant personal circumstances, including his background, employment history, family situation, physical and psychological health, prior offending, and the character references provided. The court noted that the offender's background disclosed nothing that explained or mitigated his commission of the offences, though he was regarded well by those who knew him.

The court identified two distinct offences arising from the same examination, committed on the same day. Because they were separate offences warranting separate punishment, the court structured the sentences to run partly concurrently and partly consecutively. The total effective sentence was set at two years' imprisonment, reflecting the totality principle.

Under s 19AC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), because the aggregate sentence did not exceed three years, the court was required to consider ordering release on recognizance. The court ordered the offender's release after serving nine months, subject to a recognizance to be of good behaviour for the remaining fifteen months.

Orders Made

  • The offender was convicted of each of the two offences of giving false evidence, known to be false in a material particular, before an ACC examiner.
  • Each offence attracted a sentence of 18 months' imprisonment: the first running from 31 May 2007 to 30 November 2008; the second from 1 December 2007 to 31 May 2009 (resulting in a total effective sentence of two years).
  • The offender was ordered to be released on 28 February 2008 upon entering into a recognizance of $1,000, without surety, to be of good behaviour for 15 months (1 March 2008 to 31 May 2009).
  • Four further offences covered by a certificate under s 166 of the Criminal Procedure Act were remitted to the Downing Centre Local Court on 20 July 2007 for mention to fix a hearing date.

Key Takeaways

  • Giving false evidence to an ACC examiner is a serious Commonwealth criminal offence that can attract a custodial sentence, even where the offences arise from a single examination on one day.
  • Where two separate offences are committed on the same occasion, the totality principle still operates: the District Court structured the sentences partly concurrently and partly consecutively to reflect both the individual gravity of each offence and the overall appropriate punishment.
  • Under s 19AC of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), where an aggregate federal sentence does not exceed three years, the court must consider ordering release on recognizance, and here did so after nine months of a two-year total term.
  • Being on bail for other offences at the time of the subject offending was a relevant sentencing consideration noted by the court.
  • Positive character evidence and a sympathetic personal history did not, in this case, displace the need for a custodial sentence following a jury conviction on two counts of deliberately false evidence before a statutory examiner.

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation:
- Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 (Cth), s 33(1)
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A, 16F, 17A, 19, 19AC
- Financial Transaction Reports Act 1988 (Cth)
- Criminal Procedure Act 1986 (NSW), s 166
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 9

Cases: The judgment references cases at paragraph 35 of the full decision, but those cases are not reproduced in the text provided.