Pasquale Brancatisano v NSW Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services

District Court of NSW|2018-09-24

Solicitors: Mr Sinadinovic (for the appellant) Mr A Campbell (for the NSW Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services) File Number(s): 2015/00003216

Judgment

Any person who has been sentenced by the Local Court may appeal to the District Court contesting the severity of the sentences: s 11 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001. An appeal against sentence is to be by way of rehearing of the evidence given in the original Local Court proceedings, although fresh evidence may be given in the appeal proceedings: s17 Crimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001.
On 15 November 2017, Magistrate David Williams sentenced Pasquale Brancatisano to an aggregate sentence of 3 years with a non-parole period of two years for ten breaches of s 21B Fisheries Management Act 1994. Fines of over $75,000 were also imposed for other breaches of the Fisheries Management (General) Regulation 2010 and the Fisheries Management (Lobster Share Management Plan) Regulation 2000, with a 50% moiety to the prosecutor. Costs of $250,000 were awarded. Brancatisano appealed to the District Court New South Wales against; his conviction, the sentences imposed, the fines imposed and the costs order. Appeal bail was refused.
On 13 April 2018 I granted conditional bail to the appellant. I did so because; a hearing could not be listed for four months, the matter was proposed to be a defended hearing, and all bail concerns could be met. I noted however that the granting of bail could not be regarded as determinative of any position of the court should the matter require reconsideration of the sentences imposed by the learned magistrate.

The offences

It is important to begin with the short review of the offences the appellant now concedes were committed. The appellant was employed as the skipper of the vessel Lochiel South owned by Lochiel South Pty Ltd. That entity had shares in the lobster fishery. They were subject to a quota for each lobster fishing season. That quota limited the amount of eastern rock lobster that could be landed and sold by them. The appellant was the "nominated fisher" for Lochiel South.
The quota management system was introduced in July 1994 as a means of controlling fishing effort in the lobster fishery. A total allowable commercial catch is set each year. That allowable catch is proportionally allocated to shareholders on the basis of their shareholding in the fishery. Each shareholder can buy from sell from, lease from, or, to other shareholders their allocated quota or part thereof. The quota system and the associated legislation operates primarily through self-reporting. The proper recording of the quantity of eastern rock lobster landed, the proper tagging of eastern rock lobster and the proper use of such tags and the records that can be obtained from them are vital to the proper management of the lobster fishery.
A "fishery" is; "[A] class of fishing activity", which may be identified by reference to a species or class of fish, an area of waters or seabed, a method of fishing, a class of boat or persons and a purpose of activities. Thus, while a fishery may be identified by reference to an area of waters or seabed, it is not a place but an activity. The rock lobster fishery was identified by reference to four species of lobster and not by reference to any geographical area:" Prodanovski v Andrews, at [6].
At the conclusion of the nine week defended hearing Magistrate David Williams found that the appellant had contravened various legislative provisions relating to the taking of eastern rock lobster on 33 individual dates between 7 December 2012 and 14 May 2014. Those dates spanned the 2012 - 2013 and 2013 -2014 lobster fishing seasons.
Custodial penalties were imposed for ten s21B(1) Fisheries Management Act offences. Each involved the sale of more than twenty eastern rock lobster (the indictable quantity). The sales were to Seacliff Pty Ltd, Harbourfront restaurant and Shellharbour Square Fish Markets and on one occasion to an unknown purchaser. The 2012 - 2013 fishing season offences involved six sales, that is, unlawful trafficking, of 325.8 kg of eastern rock lobster on four dates. The appellant received $13,742.50. During the 2013-2014 season there were four sales of eastern rock lobster with quantities varying from 35 kg to 258.8 kg; total of 305 kg. The appellant received $14,381.
To appreciate the extent of the ten unlawful sales; they constituted 20% of the 2012- 2013 quota allocated to Lochiel South. Figures supplied indicate that for the period of offending the total harvest of eastern rock lobster harvested was 207,032 kg. The amount of eastern rock lobster trafficked by the appellant; 630 kg, made up 0.3% of that total: Exhibit D.
The appellant's other offences included failing to declare the amount of lobster he actually landed. The lobster that were not declared were either not tagged as required by the regulations or their tags were applied so loosely that they could later be removed and reused on other eastern rock lobster. The untagged or loosely tagged lobsters were sold by the appellant to Seacliff Functions Pty Ltd via Mr Efstathiadis and other seafood retailers in the Wollongong area.
A table setting out all of the 117 convictions and the penalties imposed on Brascatasiano is attached: Annexure A Sentencing schedule - Mr Brancatisano (224 KB, pdf) . Sentencing schedule - Mr Sentencing schedule - Mr Brancatisano (405 KB, rtf) Only those matters where the Magistrate imposed custodial penalties were ultimately the subject of this appeal.
A principal object of the Fisheries Management Act is to conserve, develop and share the fishery resources of the state for the benefit of present and future generations. The objectives of the Fisheries Management (Lobster Share Management) Plan Regulation include, increasing the biomass of eastern rock lobster and promoting commercial fishing practices for rock lobster that do not have an adverse environmental impact on the broader ecosystem.
The appellant's actions undermined the quota system. Contrary to arguments advance by the appellant, his actions, particularly those that led to the s 21B convictions, were to the detriment of the proper management of the fishery. His actions also had the potential for an adverse impact on fishery resources of the State. The other matters for which fines were imposed also had an adverse impact on the fishery and the quota system.

Sentence hearing - 24 September 2018

On 24 September 2018 Mr James QC, who appears for the appellant, confirmed that the conviction appeals would be withdrawn and informed the court that he would not be pressing any challenge to the magistrate's orders imposing fines or requiring payment of costs. Only the appeal against the aggregate sentence imposed for the ten breaches of s21B Fisheries Management Act was pursued. In relation to seven of those matters sentences of 12 months were indicated. In relation to the remaining three matters his honour indicated sentences of one year six months. An aggregate sentence of three years with a non-parole period of two years was imposed.
Mr James was reluctant to concede that no other option than custody was warranted however the focus of his submissions was on the length of the aggregate sentence. It then moved to how the balance of the sentence was to be served.
I was provided by the prosecutor with: a chronology; court attendance notices, a schedule of sentences of imprisonment imposed, a directory to the judgement of Magistrate Williams, the judgement of the Magistrate, the transcript of the sentencing proceedings, a record of the appellant's prior fisheries related offences and criminal antecedents. In addition, a medical report tendered in the court below relating to the appellant's son Joshua was tendered again, as exhibit B together with a schedule previously exhibited at the hearing in Local Court, being the New South Wales Commercial Wild Harvest Reported Landings (gross kilograms): Exhibit D.
On behalf of the appellant Mr James provided me with documents relating to the condition treatment and prognosis of the appellant's son Joshua (Exhibit 1) and an agreed schedule of the appellant's present employment status and earnings (exhibit 2). Additionally, the appellant's written submissions, although not on oath, set out some uncontroversial matters related to the appellant's subjective circumstances: MFI 2 at paragraphs 11 to 18.
In short summary; the appellant on release to bail has obtained his truck drivers and forklift licenses. He has a rail industry workers card. He works as a truck driver for two employers. He earns on average $1,200 per week. He lives in a friend's home with his son. He is allowed time of work to take his son to hospital for treatment about 5 times per month. He has no assets apart from a second hand car. He does not intend to return to the fishing industry.
Mr James's written submissions MFI's 2 & MFI 3 were supplemented by comprehensive oral submissions. Mr Averre of counsel, who appeared for the respondent, was more precise. He also provided written Submissions: MFI 3.
Mr James identified a number of matters where he submitted I would reach a different conclusion than that of the learned magistrate. In summary he criticised: the manner in which his honour assessed the objective seriousness of each offence such as planning organisation and financial gain, both individually and collectively; how he approached formulation of appropriate indicated sentences and the total sentence; how he approached appellant's criminal antecedents; his assessment of the harm caused by the offences and the likely reward of the appellant.
Ultimately, senior counsel submitted that all the purposes of sentencing could be met by indicating shorter individual sentences offences and with less aggregation than those indicated by the learned magistrate. This he submitted was particularly so as the five months served in full-time custody had achieved the purposes of general and personal deterrence. He submitted that when time served was given proper weight I could properly direct that the sentence be served by way of Intensive Corrections Order in the community.
Mr James drew my attention to the second reading speech of the Attorney General introducing changes to the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 that commenced on the day of the appeal: attached to MFI 2. Of particular importance to his submission was that the amendments now allow a sentencing court to impose Intensive Corrections Orders for aggregate sentences of up to three years. This option was not available to the learned magistrate in November 2017.
Mr James placed particular importance on the offenders continuing obligations to care for his adult son Joshua. Joshua Brascatisiano suffers from epilepsy partialis continua, a rare brain disorder which results in recurrent motor epileptic seizures. Joshua at times has been bedbound although the most recent prognosis indicates a quite remarkable response to intense immunosuppressive therapy which has meant that he is "pretty independent with most activities of daily living at home:" Exhibit 2, Dr Suan 6, September 2018.
Mr James submitted that the needs of the appellant's son were sufficiently exceptional to, independently of and in consideration with all other factors, compel a non-full time custodial option.
Mr Averre, in response, took issue with some of the points made by senior counsel particularly as to the objective seriousness of the offending and the appellant's role. He stressed the need for penalties that operated as both a specific and a general deterrent.
Mr Averre noted that while the appellant had assumed responsibilities for caring for his son the situation was not exceptional and that his situation had improved. He submitted that I was bound to follow what the Court of Criminal Appeal said in Togias (2001) 127 A Crim R 23, applying Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510. Mr Averre left to the court the assessment of whether further full-time custody was required.

Adjournment for as sentence assessment report.

At the conclusion of the days hearing, and well after 4 PM, I concluded that an aggregate sentence of three years or less was likely and that five months full-time custody was the very minimum required by all the purposes of sentencing. Of importance to that decision was that any term of imprisonment in Fisheries Management matters was rare. Judicial Commission statistics indicate only four custodial sentences in the period April 2014 to March 2018: MF1 1.
General deterrence is of particular importance in matters such as this but general deterrence principles cannot lead to a sentence which is not proportionate to the offence committed or that is more than necessary to punish the particular offender. Any term of imprisonment in such matters such as this will act hopefully as a deterrent to others involved in the fishery and lobster management scheme who might be minded to offend as this offender did. Any term of imprisonment would have significance in punishing the offender and denouncing his conduct. A lengthy Intensive Corrections Order could allow for the offender to demonstrate, by meeting his obligations, in particular by community service, that the community could be protected from further offending of this type.

Maximum penalty

Section 21B offences carry a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment with an additional penalty of up to ten times the market value of the fish trafficked. Careful attention to the maximum penalties is required. Not just because the Parliament has legislated for them. Maximum penalties provide a sentencing measure to be balanced with all other relevant factors. They also invite a comparison between the instant case and the worst case: Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357, at [30] and [31].
The jurisdictional limit of the Local Court of two years and five years in total applies. Judicial Commission statistics supplied indicate this is by far the most serious sentence imposed for breaches of s 21B, however there are so few prosecutions that comparisons are not practicable. It was submitted by the appellant that that these matters were not the most serious: MFI 1 at paragraph. It was never suggested they were. It was submitted that Magistrate Williams failed to say why custodial sentences were the only option. He did not need to. His Honour's findings speak for themselves. I agree with them.
The appellant's actions were blatant and calculated. On ten occasions he breached his obligations as the nominated fisher in the lobster industry. Those obligations were founded on trust. Such flagrant breaches of trust undermined the quota system. They had to be punished and punished severely in order to ensure that all involved in the industry understood the importance of meeting their obligations. Each offence involved an indictable amount of eastern rock lobster. The lobster fishery involves exploitation of a scarce and valuable resource. It must be scientifically managed. The legislation has that fundamental aim. The appellant's action subverted that aim. This prosecution was not punishing one aberrant act but many serious breaches of the Acts and Regulations. Only custodial sentences for the 10 most serious matters could meet the purposes of sentencing by adequately punishing the appellant.

Hardship to family

In recent years doubt has been cast on whether, as a matter of principle a sentencing court's discretion in an individual case can and should be subject to judicially imposed constraints that insist as a pre-requisite that factual matters must be exceptional before a certain course is followed: Robertson [2017] NSWCCA 205. In Carter [2018] NSWCCA 138, Justice McCallum reviewed and compared two approaches to family hardship. While, as Mr James suggests the more liberal approach suggested by Justice McCallum may be preferred to the restrictive approach derived from Edwards; until the High Court or an enlarged bench of the Court of Criminal Appeal holds otherwise - Edwards principles must be applied.
This is not to say that hardship to family falling short of the exceptional cannot be taken into account when synthetising all relevant factors. As the High Court made clear in Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520, it is for the intermediate courts of appeal to ensure consistency in approach to sentencing. Sentencing courts must strive to consistently apply settled principle; however every offender and every sentencing exercise is individual.

Totality

Here there were 10 offences committed over two lobster seasons. Each offence was part of the course of conduct but there should never be any significant discount for multiple offending. The totality principle operates to restrict the aggregate sentence imposed to that which is just and appropriate to all the offenders the appellant's offending behaviour. I also take into account the financial penalties imposed by the magistrate which were by any measure significant and designed to punish this offender and deter others.
I note that a significant costs order was also made. That order properly reflected the fact that in the Local Court every point was taken by the appellant and the prosecutor was compelled to prove each significant point beyond reasonable doubt.

The Assessment Report

Community Corrections have assessed Brancatisano as suitable to undertake Community service work. Community Corrections can provide the equivalent of up to 28 hours of work per month.

Synthesis

The appellant's ten offences individually and collectively operated to significantly undermine the quota system that is the basis of a sustainable lobster fishery. That system requires the trust of all those involved in the eastern rock lobster industry. The appellant's role as the nominated fisher and skipper of the Lochiel involved considerable personal responsibility. He ignored his obligations to his industry. His actions were seriously criminal. Individually, and in total, a significant number of eastern rock lobster were trafficked. The offences were not isolated. Planning and organisation were involved. The only purpose of engaging in the breaches was financial gain. A number of purchasers were involved.
These were not mere administrative offences. Here $28,000 was the cash amount received by the appellant.
Offences such as these are difficult to detect. The offences occurred in the context a many and varied breaches of the Fisheries Management Act and related regulations.
The number and nature of the offences require custodial sentences. Only custodial sentences could properly meet the purposes of sentencing. Custodial sentences can be very important when sentencing for regulatory offences which have resulted from a calculated breach of the rules and regulations designed to encourage proper use of a natural resource. While the maximum penalty is an important guide in any sentencing exercise where serious breaches of regulatory offences occur, as here, it is often the fact of imprisonment rather than the length of the sentence which will be of greatest significance to punish an offender and denounce their conduct. General deterrence is important but it can never be allowed to dictate a sentence which is not proportionate to the offence committed or appropriate to punish the particular offender before the court.
The appellant's subjective case does not compel leniency. He has prior fisheries offences. They deny him the leniency often given a first offender. Those earlier matters were not, as Mr James suggested, trivial or accidental breaches. They too appear calculated.
The appellant has not demonstrated any remorse or understanding of the impact of his offending. Only his change of heart shortly before the conviction appeals were heard shows some belated acceptance of responsibility.
So far as subjective deterrence is concerned I have no reason to doubt that the five months spent in custody will achieve its intended aim. However in matters such as this court has to consider imposing a penalty that denounces the conduct and makes the offender accountable for his actions. The sentences must recognise the harm done to the community and given the nature of the offence attempt to prevent further offences by deterring others from committing similar offences.
When considering the matter fresh I have to ensure a sentence that adequately punishes the appellant. Adequate punishment can now take into account the time spent in custody. Alternatives to full-time custody not available to Magistrate Williams are now available to me. Although recent changes have moderated the severity of intensive corrections orders they are not a lenient sentence. They are intended to be burdensome and the consequences of breach can be significant. The appellant will be required to give something back by community service to the community.

Orders

Appeals were lodged against all convictions, all sentences imposed and the consequential costs order made by Magistrate Williams. Mr James for the appellant withdrew, and thus did not pursue the appeals against convictions, the sentence appeals relating to fine only penalties and the costs order made. Those appeals will each be dismissed and the orders of the Local Court confirmed for those matters.
For the reasons set out above each of the appeals against a sentence involving a term of imprisonment will be upheld and the sentences imposed varied.
Each appeal against conviction is dismissed.
CAN 41 (8 May 2013 - 126 Eastern Rock Lobster) five months imprisonment fixed term to commence 10 June 2018 expire 9 November 2018.
There will be an aggregate sentence imposed for the remaining matters.

CAN 17 - 14 February 2013 (36 kg Eastern Rock Lobster) indicated sentence 9 months imprisonment
CAN 21 - 20 March 2013 (26 kg Eastern Rock Lobster) indicated sentence 6 months imprisonment.
CAN 32 - 25 April 2013 (46.7 kg Eastern Rock Lobster) indicated sentence 9 months imprisonment.
CAN 33 - 25 April 2013 (70kg Eastern Rock Lobster) indicated sentence 12 months imprisonment.
CAN 60 -8 May 2013 (38 kg Eastern Rock Lobster) indicated sentence 9 months imprisonment
CAN 65 - 17 December 2013 (35 kg Eastern Rock Lobster) indicated sentence 9 months imprisonment.
CAN 78 - 3 January 2014 (158 kg Eastern Rock Lobster) 18 months imprisonment.
CAN 83 10 January 2014 (62 kg Eastern Rock Lobster) 9 Months imprisonment.
CAN 110 22 April 2015 (49.2 Kg Eastern Rock Lobster) 12 months imprisonment. Aggregate sentence: Two years two months to be served by way of intensive correction in the community. To commence 9 November 2018 and expire 8 January 2020. Standard conditions one and two. Additional condition - 160 hours Community Service. Supervision until completion of Community Service.

Sentence schedule CAN Ref No. JusticeLink Case No 1 2015/00003216 2 2015/00003216 3 2015/00003216 4 2015/00003216 5 2015/00003216 6 2015/00003216 7 2015/00003216 8 2015/00003216 10 2015/00014826 11 2015/00014826 12 2015/00072225 13 2015/00072239 14 2015/00072248 15 2015/00072248 16 2015/00072248 17 2015/00072248 18 2015/00072248 19 2015/00072248 20 2015/00072248 21 2015/00072248 22 2015/00072248 23 2015/00072248 24 2015/00072248 25 2015/00072248 26 2015/00072248 27 2015/00072248 28 2015/00072248 29 2015/00072248 30 2015/00072248 31 2015/00072248 32 2015/00072248 33 2015/00072248 34 2015/00072248 35 2015/00072248 36 2015/00072248 37 2015/00072248 38 2015/00072248 39 2015/00072248 40 2015/00072248 41 2015/00072248 42 2015/00072248 43 2015/00072248 44 2015/00072248 45 2015/00072248 46 2015/00072248 47 2015/00072248 48 2015/00072248 49 2015/00072248 50 2015/00072248 51 2015/00072248 52 2015/00072248 53 2015/00072248 54 2015/00072248 57 2015/00072248 59 2015/00072248 60 2015/00072248 61 2015/00072248 62 2015/00072248 63 2015/00072248 64 2015/00072248 65 2015/00072248 66 2015/00072248 67 2015/00072248 68 2015/00072248 69 2015/00072248 70 2015/00072248 71 2015/00072248 72 2015/00072248 73 2015/00072248 74 2015/00072248 75 2015/00072248 76 2015/00072248 77 2015/00072248 78 2015/00072248 79 2015/00072248 80 2015/00072248 81 2015/00072248 82 2015/00072248 83 2015/00072248 84 2015/00072248 85 2015/00072248 86 2015/00072248 87 2015/00072248 88 2015/00072248 90 2015/00072248 91 2015/00072248 92 2015/00072248 93 2015/00072248 94 2015/00072248 95 2015/00072248 96 2015/00072248 98 2015/00072248 99 2015/00072248 100 2015/00072248 101 2015/00072248 102 2015/00072248 105 2015/00072248 106 2015/00072248 107 2015/00072248 108 2015/00072248 109 2015/00072248 110 2015/00072248 111 2015/00072248 112 2015/00072248 113 2015/00072248 115 2015/00072248 116 2015/00072248 117 2015/00072248 for Pasquale Brancatisano Local Court Sentence District Court Sentence 001 Fine $1,000.00 Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal dismissed. Orders of the Local Court confirmed 002 Fine $1,000.00 As above 003 Fine $1,000.00 As above 004 Fine $1,000.00 As above 005 Fine $1,000.00 As above 006 Fine $1,000.00 As above 007 Fine $1,000.00 As above 008 Fine $1,000.00 As above 003 Convicted s10A As above 002 Fine $2,000.00 As above 001 Convicted s10A As above 001 Fine $2,000.00 As above 001 Fine $1,000.00 As above 002 Convicted s10A As above 003 Convicted s10A As above 004 Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 15/11/17 to 14/11/20. Non-parole period 2y. Indicative Term 12 months. Aggregate sentence to be served by Intensive Corrections order for 2 years 2 months. Additional condition 160 hours Community Service. Indicative Term 9 months 005 Convicted s10A Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal dismissed. Orders of the Local Court confirmed 006 Convicted s10A As above 007 Convicted s10A As above 008 Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 15/11/17 to 14/11/20. Non-parole period 2y. Indicative Term 12 months. Aggregate sentence to be served by Intensive Corrections order for 2 years 2 months. Additional condition 160 hours Community Service. Indicative Term 6 months 009 Convicted s10A As above 10 Fine $1,000.00 As above 11 Convicted s10A As above 12 Convicted s10A As above 13 Convicted s10A As above 14 Convicted s10A As above 15 Convicted s10A As above 16 Convicted s10A As above 17 Convicted s10A As above 18 Convicted s10A As above 19 Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 15/11/17 to 14/11/20. Non-parole period 2 y. Indicative Term 12 months. Aggregate sentence to be served by Intensive Corrections order for 2 years 2 months. Additional condition 160 hours Community Service. Indicative Term 9 months 20 Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 15/11/17 to 14/11/20. Non-parole period 2y. Indicative Term 12 months. Aggregate sentence to be served by Intensive Corrections order for 2 years 2 months. Additional condition 160 hours Community Service. Indicative Term 12 months 21 Convicted s10A Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal dismissed. Orders of the Local Court confirmed 22 Convicted s10A As above 23 Convicted s10A As above 24 Convicted s10A As above 25 Convicted s10A As above 26 Convicted s10A As above 27 Convicted s10A As above 28 Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 15/11/17 to 14/11/20. Non-parole period 2y. Indicative Term 18 months. Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal upheld in part. Sentence varied fixed term of imprisonment of 5 months 10/06/18 to 09/11/18. 29 Convicted s10A Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal dismissed. Orders of the Local Court confirmed 32 Fine $1,000.00 As above 33 Fine $2,000.00 As above 34 Fine $2,000.00 As above 35 Convicted s10A As above 36 Fine $1,000.00 As above 37 Fine $2,000.00 As above 38 Fine $2,000.00 As above 39 Convicted s10A As above 40 Fine $1,000.00 As above 41 Fine $2,000.00 As above 42 Fine $2,000.00 As above 43 Convicted s10A As above 46 Fine $2,000.00 As above 48 Fine $1,000.00 As above 30 Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 15/11/17 to 14/11/20. Non-parole period 2y. Indicative Term 12 months. Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal upheld in part. Sentence varied . Aggregate sentence to be served by Intensive Corrections order for 2 years 2 months. Additional condition 160 hours Community Service. Indicative Term 9 months 31 Convicted s10A Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal dismissed. Orders of the Local Court confirmed 49 Convicted s10A As above 50 Convicted s10A As above 51 Convicted s10A As above 52 Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 15/11/17 to 14/11/20. Non-parole period 2y. Indicative Term 12 months. Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal upheld in part. Sentence varied. Aggregate sentence to be served by Intensive Corrections order for 2 years 2 months. Additional condition 160 hours Community Service. Indicative Term 9 months 53 Convicted s10A Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal dismissed. Orders of the Local Court confirmed 54 Fine $2,000.00 As above 55 Fine $1,000.00 As above 56 Fine $2,000.00 As above 57 Convicted s10A As above 58 Fine $1,000.00 As above 59 Fine $2,000.00 As above 60 Fine $2,000.00 As above 61 Convicted s10A As above 62 Convicted s10A As above 63 Convicted s10A As above 64 Convicted s10A As above 65 Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 15/11/17 to 14/11/20. Non-parole period 2y. Indicative Term 18 months. Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal upheld in part. Sentence varied. Aggregate sentence to be served by Intensive Corrections order for 2 years 2 months. Additional condition 160 hours Community Service. Indicative Term 18 months 66 Convicted s10A Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal dismissed. Orders of the Local Court confirmed 67 Convicted s10A As above 68 Convicted s10A As above 69 Convicted s10A As above 70 Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 15/11/17 to 14/11/20. Non-parole period 2y. Indicative Term 12 months. Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal upheld in part. Sentence varied. Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal upheld in part. Sentence varied. Aggregate sentence to be served by Intensive Corrections order for 2 years 2 months. Additional condition 160 hours Community Service. Indicative Term 9 months 71 Convicted s10A Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal dismissed. Orders of the Local Court confirmed 72 Fine $2,000.00 As above 73 Fine $2,000.00 As above 74 Fine $2,000.00 As above 75 Fine $2,000.00 As above 77 Fine $1,000.00 As above 78 Fine $2,000.00 As above 79 Fine $2,000.00 As above 80 Fine $2,000.00 As above 81 Fine $1,000.00 As above 82 Fine $1,000.00 As above 83 Fine $2,000.00 As above 85 Fine $1,000.00 As above 86 Fine $2,000.00 As above 87 Fine $1,000.00 As above 88 Fine $2,000.00 As above 89 Fine $1,000.00 As above 92 Fine $2,000.00 As above 93 Convicted s10A As above 94 Convicted s10A As above 95 Convicted s10A As above 96 Convicted s10A As above 97 Aggregate term of imprisonment of 3 years 15/11/17 to 14/11/20. Non-parole period 2y. Indicative Term 18 months. Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal upheld in part. Sentence varied. Aggregate sentence to be served by Intensive Corrections order for 2 years 2 months. Additional condition 160 hours Community Service. Indicative Term 12 months 98 Convicted s10A Conviction appeal withdrawn. Sentence appeal dismissed. Orders of the Local Court confirmed 99 Convicted s10A As above 100 Convicted s10A As above 102 Fine $2,000.00 As above 103 Fine $1,000.00 As above 104 Fine $4,000.00 As above

DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 13 November 2018

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Source

Judgment (13 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (6)