Citation: R v Edmonds [2020] NSWDC 687
Court: District Court of New South Wales
Date: 6 November 2020
Judge: Colefax SC DCJ
Background
The offender was the partner of a woman facing serious firearms charges who had been refused bail in October 2017. To support a bail application in the Supreme Court, two letters were tendered purportedly authored by a Queensland medical specialist, describing the accused as suffering terminal brain cancer with three to six months to live and requiring urgent treatment unavailable in custody.
Both letters were fabricated. The offender had prepared and signed them herself, without the knowledge of the lawyers acting for her partner. The Supreme Court granted bail on the strength of those letters, with the presiding judge expressly relying on the medical evidence they contained.
The offender was ultimately charged with two counts of doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice under s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), one count for each forged letter. It was agreed that the documents were intended not only for the bail application but also for use in any subsequent sentencing proceedings relating to her partner.
Legal Issues
- What was the objective seriousness of each offence, assessed within the range for offences of their kind under s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)?
- What weight should be given to the offender's subjective circumstances, including her claimed dysfunctional upbringing, traumatic experiences, mental health diagnoses, and expressions of remorse?
- What discount applied for the early plea of guilty, and how should the two offences be structured given their related course of conduct?
- Whether special circumstances existed to vary the standard ratio between the head sentence and the non-parole period.
Decision
His Honour assessed each offence as slightly above the mid-range for offences of their type. The key factors elevating seriousness were the dual intended uses of each document (bail and sentencing proceedings) and the fact that the bail application succeeded directly as a result of the forgeries. No additional statutory aggravating factors were identified.
The court declined to accept much of the offender's subjective case. Although a forensic psychologist's report diagnosed an adjustment disorder and described a dysfunctional upbringing and later trauma, the offender did not give evidence to confirm the history she had provided to the psychologist. His Honour reasoned that a person capable of fabricating detailed false documents to manipulate court processes would face little difficulty presenting a favourable personal history to an expert, particularly without going into the witness box. In the absence of independent corroborating evidence, the court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the claimed disadvantage, trauma, adjustment disorder, or remorse had been established.
The offender's criminal record, which included multiple dishonesty offences, precluded any leniency available to a first offender. Her prospects of rehabilitation were assessed as guarded, and the court found that both general and specific deterrence were fully engaged. An early guilty plea attracted a 25 per cent discount. A claim for further discount based on assistance to authorities was not accepted, as insufficient information had been provided to allow the court to assess the value of that assistance.
Because the two offences formed part of a single ongoing course of conduct, the court imposed an aggregate sentence with meaningful partial concurrency, backdated to account for pre-sentence custody.
Orders Made
- Aggregate term of imprisonment of 4 years 6 months imposed for the two offences of doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice.
- Non-parole period of 3 years 4 months, commencing 6 April 2020 and expiring 5 August 2023.
- Balance of term of 1 year 2 months, commencing 6 August 2023 and expiring 5 October 2024.
- No finding of special circumstances made.
Key Takeaways
- The District Court assessed fabricating medical letters for use in bail proceedings, where those letters directly caused bail to be granted, as slightly above the mid-range for offences under s 319 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW).
- Where an offender does not enter the witness box to confirm the personal history provided to a forensic psychologist, and where that offender has a demonstrated capacity for serious dishonesty, a sentencing court may decline to accept unverified subjective claims on the balance of probabilities.
- A history of comparatively minor dishonesty offences does not aggravate sentence under the statutory scheme but does disentitle an offender to the leniency ordinarily available to a first offender.
- Offences that involve manufacturing false evidence to corrupt judicial processes, including bail hearings, attract strong general and specific deterrence considerations and, in the court's view, must be dealt with sternly.
- Under s 319, the dual intended use of a forged document (bail proceedings and anticipated sentencing proceedings) is a relevant factor elevating the objective seriousness of the offence beyond a single-purpose forgery.
Legislation and Cases Referenced
Legislation:
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 319 (doing an act intending to pervert the course of justice; maximum penalty: 14 years imprisonment)
Cases:
No cases were cited in the provided text. The judgment references High Court authority on reduced moral culpability for dysfunctional upbringings, but no specific citation was included in the material provided.