Citation: R v Neil Gordon Camm; R v Harold Charles Cary; R v Brendan Matthew Godfrey [2008] NSWDC 162
Court: NSW District Court
Date: 16 May 2008
Judge(s): Goldring DCJ
Background
Five accused were originally charged with conspiracy to dishonestly obtain a gain from ATSIC (the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission), a Commonwealth entity. One accused was acquitted by the jury. Two others, including Godfrey, pleaded guilty during the pre-trial period to a related charge of taking part in a scheme to dishonestly obtain a benefit from a Commonwealth entity. Camm and Cary were convicted by the jury on the conspiracy charge.
The scheme involved applying to ATSIC for a loan, ostensibly to purchase a property, and then using the funds to acquire other properties and generate cash benefits for the participants. The sentencing judge found, beyond reasonable doubt, that a fifth co-offender, Watson (whose sentencing was separately adjourned), was the architect and prime mover of the entire scheme.
The three offenders before the court occupied distinct roles. Camm was a knowing and willing participant who took initiatives to advance Watson's objectives. Cary was described as gullible and heavily influenced by Watson, though he became aware of the dishonest nature of the scheme and continued to participate. Godfrey was drawn into the scheme by Watson and received a significant benefit, but also entered a guilty plea.
Legal Issues
- What sentences were appropriate for each offender, given their differing levels of participation and culpability in a joint fraudulent conspiracy against a Commonwealth entity?
- How should the court reflect the relative involvement of each conspirator, ranging from the central organiser to more peripheral participants?
- Were there any alternatives to custodial sentences, as required to be considered under the Commonwealth legislation?
- To what extent should mitigating factors, including guilty pleas and the impact of imprisonment on dependants, reduce the sentences imposed?
Decision
Goldring DCJ approached sentencing by first establishing the relative culpability of each offender within the joint enterprise. The judge found Watson to be the scheme's architect, with Camm and Godfrey playing essential supporting roles and Cary occupying the least culpable position, described as a "labourer" compared to Camm and Godfrey as "tradesmen." This hierarchy directly governed the length and conditions of each sentence.
Camm received the most severe sentence among the three, reflecting his greater knowledge, understanding, and willingness as a participant. The court found no basis for any reasonable doubt about his culpability, even though his initiatives were taken in furtherance of Watson's objectives rather than independently conceived.
Cary's sentence acknowledged that his culpability was meaningfully lower than Camm's. The court accepted that Watson had directed virtually all of Cary's business and financial decisions since around 1996, and that the loan application form containing false statements had been completed by Watson on Cary's behalf. Cary was nonetheless held responsible for later becoming aware of the dishonesty and continuing to participate. The court also took into account the effect that imprisonment would have on his partner and family.
Godfrey received a discount on sentence for his guilty plea, which the court quantified by comparing his actual sentence of one year and ten months against a notional head sentence of two years and six months. The court considered that there was no realistic alternative to imprisonment for any of the three offenders given the seriousness of the offences, but varied the conditions of imprisonment, including the use of recognizance releases, to reflect individual circumstances.
Orders Made
- Camm: four years imprisonment commencing 16 May 2008, expiring 15 May 2012, with a non-parole period of two and a half years expiring 15 November 2010.
- Cary: three years imprisonment commencing 16 May 2008, expiring 15 May 2011, with release on recognizance of $1,000 after serving one year and six months, on 15 November 2009.
- Godfrey: one year and ten months imprisonment commencing 23 May 2008, expiring 22 March 2010, with immediate release upon entering a recognizance of $10,000 pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
Key Takeaways
- The District Court applied a structured assessment of relative culpability within a joint conspiracy, anchoring each sentence to the offender's actual role, knowledge, and degree of benefit derived from the scheme.
- Where one conspirator has been found to be the scheme's architect, co-offenders who played facilitative but nonetheless essential roles will be sentenced more heavily than those who were manipulated into participation, even if all were found guilty of the same or related charges.
- A guilty plea resulted in a measurable sentence reduction: Godfrey's term was reduced from a notional two years and six months to one year and ten months, illustrating the court's approach to quantifying the utilitarian value of an early plea.
- Under the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), courts are required to consider alternatives to imprisonment; however, the seriousness of a large-scale fraud on a Commonwealth entity was held to preclude any non-custodial option in this case.
- Conditions of imprisonment, including recognizance releases and non-parole periods, were calibrated individually to reflect personal circumstances such as family responsibilities, even where the nature of the offending itself required a custodial term.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation
- Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), including s 20(1)(b)
Cases
No cases were cited in the portion of the judgment provided.