AI-generated summaries. Not legal advice. Always verify against the official judgment on NSW Caselaw.
← All decisions
District Court 15 October 2025

R v Medley (No 2)

[2025] NSWDC 500

Fraud & dishonesty
APPEALS SEVERITY APPEAL APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART CONDITIONAL RELEASE ORDER

Citation: R v Medley (No 2) [2025] NSWDC 500
Court: District Court of NSW
Date: 15 October 2025
Judge(s): Barrow SC DCJ

Background

The appellant operated a debt collection business, Black Collections Pty Ltd, which required a Commercial Agents and Private Inquiry Agents (CAPI) licence to operate lawfully in NSW. Through a series of failed renewal attempts, the business lost its licence from late 2013 but continued to operate. The appellant made knowingly false representations to an institutional client, IPF, that the business held a valid CAPI licence, and received commissions totalling approximately $118,420 and $100,286 across two distinct periods in 2016 to 2018.

The appellant was convicted of two offences of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception under s 192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). The Local Court imposed an 18-month Community Correction Order for both offences. The appellant appealed the severity of that sentence, seeking a dismissal of the charges under s 10 or s 10(1)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The Crown opposed any such outcome.

A severity appeal in this context proceeds as a de novo hearing, requiring the District Court to determine afresh the appropriate sentence for both offences.

Legal Issues

  • Whether the sentences imposed by the Local Court were excessive in severity
  • Whether the offences warranted a non-conviction order under s 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)
  • What weight should be given to the significant delay in investigation and prosecution
  • Whether the appellant had suffered non-curial (extra-curial) punishment sufficient to reduce her sentence
  • What sentencing disposition appropriately reflected the objective seriousness of the offending, the appellant's personal circumstances, and the need for general deterrence

Decision

Objective seriousness of the offending

The court found the offences were relatively serious and clearly not trivial. They involved deliberate and dishonest misrepresentations, a clear breach of trust, and the receipt of substantial financial commissions over extended periods (at [26]-[27]). However, the court distinguished this case from typical fraud: the appellant's business provided a genuine service to IPF, and there was no evidence she misrepresented the work actually performed. The court did not accept the characterisation of her conduct as motivated by pure greed, finding it was more directed at keeping the business afloat (at [24]-[25]).

Subjective circumstances

The appellant had no prior convictions, prior good character, had not re-offended since being charged, and presented with good prospects of rehabilitation (at [28]-[29]). The court accepted her offending was an aberration against a background of personal turbulence, including a difficult period as a single parent and reliance on a former partner to her significant detriment (at [31]). However, the court was not satisfied the appellant was genuinely remorseful or accepted responsibility, finding her letter to the court continued to apportion blame to others and did not acknowledge the basis of her convictions (at [34]).

Delay and non-curial punishment

The court found the long delay, spanning almost nine years from the offending to the appeal, caused the appellant ongoing anxiety and distress warranting consideration in sentencing (at [41]). The two-year investigation delay was not accepted as routine or reasonable. The Local Court proceedings, which ran for approximately two years and nine months, were also not of the appellant's making (at [37]). The court accepted that the closure of bank accounts, revocation of certain privileges, loss of business clients, and social ostracism constituted some non-curial punishment, though of limited weight (at [47]).

Appropriate disposition

The court declined to dismiss the proceedings under s 10, finding such an outcome would not reflect the relative seriousness of the offending, particularly given the importance of general deterrence in deliberate business deception (at [52]-[53]). The court also found that a Community Correction Order, as imposed by the Local Court, was not warranted given the appellant's prior good character, lack of convictions, extensive rehabilitation, and low likelihood of reoffending (at [54]). The appropriate disposition was a Conditional Release Order with conviction for 12 months.

Orders Made

  • The severity appeal is allowed in part
  • The orders made by the Local Court Magistrate are quashed
  • The appellant is convicted of both offences
  • In lieu, pursuant to s 9(1)(a) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), a Conditional Release Order with conviction is imposed for both offences for a period of 12 months, dating from 15 October 2025
  • Conditions: the offender must not commit any offence; the offender must appear before the court if called on during the term of the order

Key Takeaways

  • A severity appeal in the District Court proceeds as a de novo hearing, requiring the court to independently assess the appropriate sentencing disposition without deference to the Local Court's original orders (at [5]).

  • Deliberate dishonesty in a business context to obtain a financial benefit engages the sentencing objective of general deterrence even where the offender otherwise presents favourably, and a non-conviction order under s 10 may be inappropriate in such cases notwithstanding personal mitigating factors (at [18], [52]-[53]).

  • Unreasonable delay in the investigation and prosecution phases, particularly where Local Court proceedings extend for nearly three years in circumstances not attributable to the accused, is a mitigating factor in sentencing that the court will weigh against the offender's mental health impacts (at [37], [41]).

  • The District Court confirmed that consequences such as account closures, loss of business clients, and social ostracism following conviction can amount to some non-curial punishment, though the weight given to such matters may be limited where those consequences flow directly from the offending conduct (at [47]).

  • Prior good character carries reduced mitigating weight where it was precisely that character which placed the offender in a position of trust that enabled the offending (at [28]).

Legislation and Cases Referenced

Legislation
- Crimes Act 1900 (NSW)
- Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001 (NSW).
- Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW)

Cases
- R v O’Dwyer [2024] NSWDC 11
- Swayer-Jones [2024] NSWCCA 73
- R v Todd (1982) 2 NSWLR 517
- Jehad Jodeh v R [2011] NSWCCA 194
- Ashley v The State of Western Australia [2017] WASCA 131