Conclusion
44 There can be no doubt that the applicant's offending was serious. He was sentenced for 15 acts of fraud each of which was deliberate and involved a significant sum of money. He was in a position of trust being a senior executive of the company. As Dunford J said in Giam (No 2) "offences of this type call for significant sentences." Although in the applicant's case consideration of personal deterrence was not significant, he is unlikely to be employed in a similar position, general deterrence is an important component of his sentence. Offences of this nature can be difficult to detect. When a company places its trust in a senior official it is entitled to expect that trust will be honoured. When it is not, both the viability of that company and its dealings with others, may be compromised.
45 There is nothing arising from the decisions placed before the court which would persuade me that the applicant's sentences were excessive or that the overall term was excessive. It must be remembered that the applicant's dishonesty occurred repeatedly and over a significant period of time. It was not a "one off" opportunistic offence. It was a lengthy series of deliberate acts of dishonesty. Although his Honour made the errors to which I have referred I am not persuaded that any of the individual sentences were excessive. If the sentences were set aside and the applicant resentenced a lesser sentence in respect of sequence 42 may have been appropriate. However, a significantly greater sentence would have been required in relation to sequence 1 having regard to the matters on the Form 1. Furthermore, in my opinion it was not appropriate to provide sentences for each of 14 counts and require them to be served concurrently. They should have been at least divided into three groups and the sentences made partially concurrent. If this had been done the overall sentence would not have been less than that which his Honour imposed and may have been greater. Both the individual sentences and the total sentence were well within the appropriate range.
46 There are two further matters. Firstly, the Crown chose to place matters on a Form 1 which in total exceeded the total amount for which the applicant was required to be sentenced. That was not appropriate and may have given the applicant the benefit of being sentenced for crimes with a lesser total culpability than was appropriate. Secondly, the Form 1 should have been considered with the greater offence, which his Honour in fact did, although contrary to the course which the parties asked him to take.
47 Although I would grant leave to appeal, I would dismiss the appeal.
48 HARRISON J: I have had the benefit of reading the draft judgment of McClellan CJ at CL. I agree with his Honour's reasons and with the orders he proposes.
49 I agree, in particular, with his Honour's remarks at par [30], that the present offences "were objectively serious", involved "deliberate act[s] of dishonesty" and were "committed as part of a sequence extending over a lengthy period". There was of course material before the learned sentencing judge that the period over which the applicant's conduct occurred corresponded significantly with a period during which the applicant's son was struggling with the effects of heroin addiction. Although that material was not wholly satisfactory, a reasonably clear inference from the evidence is that the applicant's conduct was directly related to attempts by him and his family to assist his son through his ordeal.