Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Lee v R [2020] NSWCCA 307 Hearing dates: 24 July 2020 Date of orders: 26 November 2020 Decision date: 26 November 2020 Before: Johnson J at [1] Wright J at [171] Wilson J at [172] Decision: 1. Grant leave to appeal against sentence. 2. Appeal against sentence dismissed. Catchwords: APPEAL – sentence – offence of possession of CITES specimens and regulated live specimens contrary to s.303GN(2) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ("EPBC Act") – offence of engaging in conduct in capacity as a Commonwealth public official with the intention of dishonestly gaining a benefit contrary to s.142.2(1)(a)(iii) Criminal Code (Cth) – offence of dealing with money over $10,000 believed to be proceeds of crime contrary to s.400.6(1) Criminal Code (Cth) – further offences under s.303GN(2) EPBC Act and abuse of public office to gain advantage contrary to s.142.2(1)(a)(ii) Criminal Code (Cth) taken into account on sentence – Applicant employed as a Senior Biosecurity Officer by Commonwealth Department of Agriculture and Water Resources – Applicant used information obtained in course of employment to facilitate illegal importation of regulated specimens for sale – whether sentencing Judge erred in failing to consider alternatives to fulltime imprisonment in sentencing Applicant – error not demonstrated – whether sentencing Judge erred in failing to give full effect to "Ellis principle" – error not demonstrated – whether sentencing Judge erred in failing to give discount for Applicant's assistance and offer to assist – error not demonstrated – whether sentencing Judge erred in relying upon Applicant's employment to reduce mitigating factor of prior good character where his employment was already relied upon in proof of an element and had not been obtained for purpose of committing offences – error not demonstrated – whether aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances – offences of considerable objective gravity – offences committed by public official occupying position of trust within Department administering EPBC Act – importance of general deterrence on sentence where public official uses inside information to abuse position of trust – sentence not manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) Criminal Code (Cth) Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) Cases Cited: Atanackovic v R (2015) 45 VR 179; [2015] VSCA 136 Campbell v R [2018] NSWCCA 87 Carr v R [2020] NSWCCA 214 CMB v Attorney General (NSW) (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie (2017) 270 A Crim R 556; [2017] NSWCCA 301 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Ede (2014) 289 FLR 82; [2014] NSWCA 282 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (2019) 137 ACSR 575; [2019] FCA 1170 Douar v R (2005) 159 A Crim R 154; [2005] NSWCCA 455 Dwayhi v R (2011) 205 A Crim R 274; [2011] NSWCCA 67 Elias v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 483; [2013] HCA 31 Fedele v R (2016) 257 A Crim R 78; [2015] NSWCCA 286 Johnsson v R [2007] NSWCCA 192 Kannis v R [2020] NSWCCA 79 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Merhi v R [2019] NSWCCA 322 Morgan v R [2007] NSWCCA 8 Munda v State of Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38 Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221 R v Allan; Ex parte Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] QCA 270 R v Bartels [2018] SASCFC 34 R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117 R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603 R v Engeln [2014] QCA 313 R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 R v Gent (2005) 162 A Crim R 29; [2005] NSWCCA 370 R v Gillett [2019] ACTSC 30 R v GLB [2003] NSWCCA 210 R v Huang; R v Siu (2007) 174 A Crim R 370; [2007] NSWCCA 259 R v Kennedy (2019) 101 NSWLR 121; [2019] NSWCCA 242 R v Lamella [2014] NSWCCA 122 R v Lee [2019] NSWDC 888 R v Nikolovska (2010) 209 A Crim R 218; [2010] NSWCCA 169 R v Obeid (No. 12) [2016] NSWSC 1815 R v Perez-Vargas (1986) 8 NSWLR 559 R v Togias (2002) 132 A Crim R 573; [2002] NSWCCA 363 R v Winchester (1992) 58 A Crim R 345 Raad v R (2011) 220 A Crim R 471; [2011] NSWCCA 138 Retsos v R [2006] NSWCCA 85 Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21 Shambayati v R (1999) 105 A Crim R 373 Warnakulasuriya v R [2009] WASC 257 Younan v R [2012] NSWCCA 155 Texts Cited: --- Category: Principal judgment Parties: Joseph Ian Lee (Applicant) Regina (Crown) Representation: Counsel: Mr KD Ginges (Applicant) Ms S Callan SC (Respondent) Solicitors: Blake Lawyers (Applicant) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent) File Number(s): 2018/347532 Publication restriction: --- Decision under appeal Court or tribunal: District Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: --- Citation: R v Lee [2019] NSWDC 888 Date of Decision: 18 December 2019 Before: His Honour Judge King SC File Number(s): 2018/347532 Judgment 1. JOHNSON J: By Notice of Appeal dated 1 May 2020, the Applicant, Joseph Ian Lee, seeks leave to appeal with respect to sentences imposed at the Sydney District Court on 18 December 2019 for offences under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) ("EPBC Act") and the Criminal Code (Cth). 2. As will be seen, certain offences under the EPBC Act involve specimens classified in accordance with the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (Washington, 3 March 1973) [1976] ATC 290 ("CITES"). The Offences and Aggregate Sentence 1. Following pleas of guilty, the Applicant was sentenced by his Honour Judge King SC for the following offences: 1. Count 1 - On 12 November 2018, possession of CITES specimens and regulated live specimens contrary to s.303GN(2) EPBC Act, an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years and/or a fine of 1,000 penalty units ($210,000.00). 2. Count 2 - Between 11 October 2016 and 28 February 2018, being a Commonwealth public official, engaging in conduct in his capacity as a Commonwealth public official with the intention of dishonestly obtaining a benefit for himself contrary to s.142.2(1)(a)(iii) Criminal Code (Cth), an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years. 3. Count 3 - On or about 12 November 2018, dealing with money that was, and that he believed to be, proceeds of crime and at the time of the dealing, the value of the money was $10,000.00 or more contrary to s.400.6(1) Criminal Code (Cth), an offence punishable by a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years. 1. At the request of the Applicant, the sentencing Judge took into account on sentence, under s.16BA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), the following additional offences: 1. Sequence 4 - Between 2 September 2018 and 5 November 2018, possession of non-native CITES regulated live specimens contrary to s.303GN(2) EPBC Act which, if prosecuted separately, is punishable by a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years and/or a fine of 1,000 penalty units; 2. Sequence 6 - On or about 25 August 2017, abuse of public office to gain advantage contrary to s.142.2(1)(a)(ii) Criminal Code (Cth) which, if prosecuted separately, is punishable by a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years. 1. The Applicant was sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment for three years commencing 18 December 2019 and expiring on 17 December 2022, with a direction that he be released by way of a recognisance release order on 17 June 2021 after serving 18 months' imprisonment. Proceeding by way of an aggregate sentence is available for several Commonwealth offences: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie (2017) 270 A Crim R 556; [2017] NSWCCA 301 at [141]-[146]. 2. The sentencing Judge nominated the following indicative sentences: 1. Count 1 - imprisonment for 12 months; 2. Count 2 - imprisonment for two years; 3. Count 3 - imprisonment for 12 months. Grounds of Appeal 1. The Applicant relies upon the following grounds of appeal: 1. Ground 1 - That the learned sentencing Judge erred in failing to consider alternatives to fulltime imprisonment available in sentencing the Applicant. 2. Ground 2 - That the learned sentencing Judge erred in failing to give full effect to the "Ellis discount" (R v Ellis (1986) 6 NSWLR 603). 3. Ground 3 - That the sentencing Judge erred in failing to give any discount on account of the Applicant's assistance and offer to assist. 4. Ground 4 - That the sentencing Judge erred in relying upon the Applicant's employment as a Biosecurity Officer to reduce his prior good character as a mitigating factor, in circumstances where the Applicant's employment was already relied upon in proof of an element (of Count 2) and had not been obtained for the purposes of committing any offences. 5. Ground 5 - The sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. Facts of Offences 1. An Agreed Statement of Facts ("Agreed Facts") was tendered at the sentencing hearing which his Honour utilised for the purpose of passing sentence: R v Lee [2019] NSWDC 888. 2. The sentencing Judge made findings of fact which were not challenged in this Court. His Honour commenced with an executive summary drawn from the Agreed Facts (at ROS[9]-[14]): "EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 9 Between 14 June 2011 and 3 January 2019, the offender was employed as a Senior Biosecurity Officer by the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture and Water Resources (DAWR). The Criminal Code (Cth) dictionary defines a 'Senior Biosecurity Officer' as a public official. 10 Between 11 October 2016 and 28 February 2018, the offender used information obtained in the course of his employment to facilitate the illegal importation of regulated specimens for sale. The offender had responsibilities which included inspecting cargo and specimens to determine compliance with relevant legislation. 11 The offender has never held a permit for the importation of live animals. 12 The offender took possession of illegally imported specimens. The offender stole illegally imported large specimens that he was tasked with euthanizing in the course of his employment. 13 The offender sold illegally imported specimens in his possession for financial gain. 14 On the execution of a search warrant, AUD $10,350 in cash was located in the safe of the offender's property, that money being the proceeds of sale of illegally imported regulated specimens." 1. His Honour found (at ROS[17]-[18]): "17 In summary, the offender on the execution of the search warrant: * Was found to be in the possession of two Asian Arowana, one silver Arowana and one Sakawa Catfish which were illegally imported specimens. * Did possess and arrange for the sale of the following illegally imported specimens: Peacock Bass, Iridescent Shark, Leo Ray, Tesugelsi Bichier, Tesugelsi Birchier, Silver Arowana, Platinum Senegal Birch, and Fire Eel; * Used information obtained through the course of his employment as a Senior Biosecurity Officer at [DAWR] to circumvent vulnerabilities in the Live Fish Importation System Procedures used by [DAWR] and to assist in facilitating the illegal importation of regulated large specimens for sale; * In the course of his employment as a Senior Biosecurity Officer at [DAWR], stole five live prohibited aquatic fauna which were identified as being Black Arowana, Albino Arowana and Asian Arowana; * The offender was also found in possession of $10,350 in cash, located inside his personal safe. 18 The offender, as a Senior Biosecurity Officer, was entrusted with protecting the community and the environment from biosecurity risks. He instead used his position of trust to identify weaknesses in the system and assist in facilitating illegal importations for his own financial gain. Due to his position, the offender would have been acutely aware of the potential adverse consequences of his actions, but yet persisted in his conduct over a significant period of time. The conduct was not isolated or impulsive, but rather represented a systemic and ongoing breach of trust." 1. His Honour made the following detailed findings concerning the Count 1 and Sequence 4 offences (at ROS[20]-[30]): "COUNT 1, POSSESS ILLEGALLY IMPORTED SPECIMENS 20 A regulated live specimen is defined in the dictionary to the EPBC Act as having a meaning which defines a regulated live specimen as: '(a) is a live animal or plant; and (b) is not included in Part 1 of the list referred to in s 303EB.' 21 That section establishes a list of specimens suitable for live import, being: * Part 1 - unregulated specimens - which can be brought into Australia without a permit; and * Part 2 - allowable regulated specimens - which require a permit and which may be conditional. 22 If a large specimen is not included in one of the lists it cannot be imported. This is because it has not been assessed for its potential impact on the Australian environment and it may pose a threat to national biodiversity. 23 On 12 November 2018, the Australian Federal Police executed a search warrant at the offender's home address. They located illegally imported regulated live specimens, which were identified as two Asian Arowana, one silver Arowana and one Suckermouth Catfish. 24 The specimens were removed from the residential premises and later euthanized due to the quarantine risks. SEQUENCE 4, On s 16BA OF THE CRIMES ACT SCHEDULE 25 Between 2 September 2018 and 5 November 2018, intercepted telephone calls involving the offender demonstrated communication between him and a number of persons arranging the sale of illegally imported regulated live specimens. These included the following: * Between 5 and 7 September 2018, the offender had a conversation with a person during which that person agreed to pay $700 for 'bass and shark', and the offender arranged to meet the purchaser in Gosford to provide the prohibited aquatic fauna to the person. * Between 8.16pm and 8.53pm on 29 October 2018, the offender engaged in a conversation where he was referred to by the name 'Tee'. The buyer agreed to purchase an albino Arowana. The offender also offered to sell a prohibited Fire Eel. * Between 6.34pm and 7.40pm on 4 November 2018, the offender engaged in conversation with a person who also referred to the offender by the name 'Tee'. The person agreed to purchase a Fire Eel and subsequently received it from the offender in a car park in near proximity to the offender's residence. 26 The offender possessed and arranged the sale of the following regulated live specimens: Peacock Bass, Iridescent Shark, Leo Ray, Teugelsi Bichier, Teugelsi Birchier, Silver Arowana, Platinum Senegal Birch and Fire Eel. 27 On 28 October 2018 an advertisement was published in the online classifieds of Gumtree. The offender published the advertisement under the name of 't88trinh@yandex.com' with the following details: 'Exotic fish, arowana, aro, leo stingray ray, bichir, birchir, eel $450. Silverwater, New South Wales, 2128, Australia. Tank shut down, everything must go. Good deals on bulk buy. Pick up only.' Then, listed in the next line: 'Silver aro x 2 (30-35cm) $1k each. Pure 100% leopoldi x 2 (18-20cm) $3k male, $4k female. Fire eel, (18cm) $850. Teugelsi bichir x 2 (20cm) $600 each. Endlicheri tiger bichir (11cm) $450. Dabola bichir (14cm), $550.' 28 When interviewed, the offender identified that he was the user of the Gumtree account and stated that 'Tee' was an alias. The offender provided police with a login password for the account. 29 Between 28 October and 8 November 2018, the offender, under the alias of Tee, engaged in message communications with a number of Gumtree users to arrange the sale of the regulated species in his possession. 30 On 12 November 2018, in a record of interview, the offender made admissions to possessing and selling the following: * A Platinum Senegal Bichir for which he received payment into the Bendigo Bank of a deposit of about $200 and a cash payment of around $1,000 to $2,000; * Five prohibited aquatic fauna in October for about $3,000 to three or four different buyers; * Two Silver Arowana that he had stolen from the department for $1,750; * Between 5 and 10 October 2018 three Potamotrygon Leopoldi Sting Ray for about $3,000 each. * In September 2018 Peacock Bass and Iridescent Shark for $500 cash. * Approximately 20 Alligator Gar sold for more than $150 each; and * Between 5 and 10 November 2018, two Potamotrygon Leopoldi Sting Ray for $1,000 and $2,500." 1. The sentencing Judge then turned to the offences contained in Counts 2 and 3 and Sequence 6 (ROS[31]-[43]): "COUNT 2 - ABUSE OF PUBLIC OFFICE 31 Between 11 October 2016 and 28 February 2018, the offender used information obtained through the course of his employment to assist in facilitating the illegal importation of regulated live specimens for sale. 32 As a Senior Biosecurity Officer, the offender conducted 'live aquarium fish' inspections, general quarantine inspections and the identification of fish to ensure only permitted species were being imported. 33 The offender in his record of interview stated that he identified holes or vulnerabilities in the live fish importation system procedures used by the Department and exploited them with the assistance of a Mr Murphy. In 2015, the offender approached Murphy with a proposal for illegally importing prohibited aquatic fauna. 34 Following the advice of the offender, Murphy would order the importation of permitted aquatic fauna and prohibited aquatic fauna from fish exporting businesses in Indonesia and Malaysia. 35 The offender had completed 'integrity awareness' and fraud training as part of his employment at the Department. 36 The offender made admissions of his involvement in the importation of illegal fish and subsequent possession and sale of the fish was garnered by information gained in his role as a Senior Biosecurity Officer. 37 The offender stated in the record of interview that his motivation was frustration with his job, colleagues, systems and internal role transfers. The offender acknowledged that his actions were illegal in facilitating the importation of regular large specimens and possessing them. SEQUENCE 6 – On s 16BA SCHEDULE 38 On 25 August 2017, the offender in the course of his duty as a Senior Biosecurity Officer stole five live prohibited aquatic fauna identified as Black Arowana, Albino Arowana and Asian Arowana from the Department while he was performing his duties as a public official. The offender made full admissions for stealing the fish he was tasked with euthanizing. The Asian Arowana stolen by the offender is a restricted species under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). 39 CITES is an international agreement between governments that aims to ensure that international trade in wild animals and plants does not threaten their survival and is enforceable under Australian law by way of the EPBC Act. 40 A CITES specimen is a specimen of a species included in the list of CITES species for the purposes of the Act published by the Minister for the Environment under the EPBC Act. COUNT 3 - PROCEEDS OF CRIME 41 On 12 November 2018, in the execution of a Crimes Act search warrant at the offender's home address, a safe was located. The offender provided the code to the safe and when opened, $10,350 in cash was contained in it. The offender made admissions during the interview that the cash in the safe was received in exchange for the sale of fish that had been illegally imported. 42 The offender stated that he believed he had received about $A40,000 from selling illegally imported fish over a period of two years (the amount contained in the safe was approximately 25% of what he admitted to having received for such sales). 43 The offender informed the AFP that he owed $A30,000 to $A40,000 to Mr Murphy relating to the setting up of a legitimate fish importation/resale business which had been set up to assist in the importation of prohibited fish." 1. His Honour recounted the execution by the Australian Federal Police ("AFP") of the search warrant on 12 November 2018 and the record of interview conducted with the Applicant (ROS[44]-[46]): "SEARCH WARRANT AND RECORD OF INTERVIEW 44 On 12 November 2018, Australian Federal Police executed a search warrant at the offender's home address, during which time they seized four regulated large specimens, two phones, a laptop computer which contained an image of prohibited aquatic fauna and encrypted messages relating to the possession of prohibited aquatic fauna, identity cards with high level maritime and aviation access and $A10,350 as previously referred to. 45 After being informed of his rights, the offender voluntarily took part in a record of interview during which he made the following admissions: * He was responsible for advertising and negotiating prohibited aquatic fauna sales utilising a false account and was also responsible for delivering the prohibited aquatic fauna sold; * The offender had years earlier created a false Facebook profile which he subsequently, together with Mr Murphy, used to advertise and sell prohibited aquatic fauna. The profile was in the name of 'Brooke Zara'. Using that profile he had joined a Facebook page forum which specialised in exotic fish to advertise the sale of illegally imported prohibited aquatic fauna that they had in their possession; * The offender used the BSB and account number of an account in his name or direct cash payments to receive payment in exchange for regulated live species that he sold in Australia; * In October 2018, he created the user name 'Tee' on the internet classified service Gumtree to sell prohibited aquatic fauna. He met with Gumtree customers in the carpark across the road from his premises to conduct the transactions. He communicated with some Gumtree customers using his personal phone; * He acknowledged that his actions were wrong in terms of breaching his obligations of employment and breaking the law; * He believed he had received about AUD $40,000 from selling illegally imported fish over a period of two years; * The offender deleted messages from his phone relating to prohibited aquatic fauna sales to avoid being implicated in the offences; * On 25 August 2017, the offender stole five live prohibited aquatic fauna, (Arowana) from the Department while he was performing his duties and euthanizing prohibited aquatic fauna; * His motivation for stealing the fish from work was that he did not want them to be euthanized. He said that there had been a batch of a couple of hundred illegally imported fish that he was responsible for euthanizing and he wanted to have some of them. He took them home and kept them as his pets, not intending to sell them; * One of the fish seized from the offender's premises is on the CITES restricted list (an Asian Arowana); 46 In the course of the interview he also voluntarily told investigators: * the password for all devices, computers and mobile phones, the safe and accounts (including e-Bay) requested by investigators; * He claimed to still owe Murphy $17,000. The $10,350 located in the safe was from selling fish he had previously obtained from Murphy and which he had kept as pets, but had sold to pay back Murphy the money claimed. The $10,350 was intended to be paid to Murphy; * He voluntarily ceased using his employed position to import fish by March 2018, when the offender became aware that the Department was conducting controlled purchases and that as a result he may be detected and caught; * He also sold his 'own' fish to pay off the debt he owed to Murphy; * He and Murphy would never import any fish that were on the CITE's list. * He did not believe he was putting the environment in danger because the fish he was selling were already in the community and were bought by people who would not be releasing them;" 1. The sentencing Judge referred to material retrieved from the Applicant's mobile phone (at ROS[47]): "Analysis for the offender's mobile phone showed: * Written correspondence under the alias of Brooke, Brooke Zara and Freshwater Exotics Australia; * Social media sales advertisements for prohibited aquatic fauna; * Images of prohibited aquatic fauna, some appearing to be in the residence of the offender; * Written correspondence requesting that a person using the alias Dayanna Grageda not mention the offender's involvement with Premium Aquaria (being the business operated by Murphy) * Sales negotiations of prohibited aquatic fauna; * Images of prohibited aquatic fauna in Styrofoam packaging; * Screen shots of receipts showing transfers to an account in the name of the offender; * Images, large amounts of Australia dollars being handled." The Applicant's Subjective Circumstances 1. The Applicant was born in September 1987 and was aged between 29 and 31 years at the time of the offences. He was 32 years old at the time of sentence. 2. The Applicant had no prior criminal history. 3. The Applicant gave evidence at the sentencing hearing on 17 December 2019. 4. A sentencing assessment report dated 29 October 2019 of Ms Beth Debreczeny, Community Corrections Officer, was tendered by the Crown at the sentencing hearing. A report of Dr Marcelo Rodriguez, psychologist, dated 20 October 2019 was tendered in the defence case on sentence. Also tendered for the defence were references of persons who knew the Applicant, being Andrew Carruthers, Danai Beganovic, Kevin Tang and Dr Alexander Dennis. The Sentencing Hearing and Sentencing Remarks 1. The sentencing hearing took place on 17 December 2019, at the conclusion of which the sentencing Judge adjourned the proceedings until the next day for sentence. 2. Given the grounds of appeal, it is appropriate to refer to a number of findings made by his Honour, including those which came under challenge or attracted submissions in this Court. 3. The sentencing Judge referred to the objective seriousness of the offences (at ROS[54]-[63]): "54 As to the objective seriousness of the offences, each of the offences is related, in effect, and involved the offender in abusing the trust that was placed in him as a Senior Biodiversity Officer. 55 The offender is clearly an intelligent person; material before the Court indicates that he achieved in the Higher School Certificate an ATAR in excess of 98. There can be no doubt that when engaging in this activity commencing in about 2015 or 2016 that he was fully aware of his obligations as an officer of the Crown and of the reasons why the legislation prohibited the import and possession of particular species. 56 The offending overall demonstrates a flagrant disregard for his responsibilities, and that overall he disregarded his responsibilities in order to achieve a benefit, whether that be a direct financial benefit by way of payment of money or in relation to establishing a future employment in a, at least later, legitimate fish distribution business. 57 While he was only found to have some four fish in his possession on 12 November 2018 which were regulated specimens [Count 1], I am of the view that it constitutes a serious example of such an offence. 58 In relation to the offence of official abuse of public office to gain advantage [Count 2], I note that it occurred over a period of more than a year and involved him in providing inside information as to how to avoid detection when importing regulated specimens. 59 I similarly regard that as a serious example of such an offence. I will return to that shortly. 60 In respect of the offence of dealing with the proceeds of crime, being $10,350 [Count 3], as previously indicated, that is approximately 25% of what he admitted he had received, and in itself is not an insignificant sum, although it falls at the very bottom of the range in terms of quantity applicable to s 400.6(1) of the Criminal Code. 61 There is no evidence before the Court that any of the regulated specimens or such specimens constituted any actual threat to the Australian environment by way of pathogen, parasite, genetic character, or characteristics such as aggression towards other fish such as Australian native species. Clearly, in the absence of them having been approved for importation, there is a hypothetical risk, but no expert evidence has been provided to the Court from any appropriately qualified person to indicate the degree of risk or the impact that any of the CITES or regulated specimens may have had on the Australian environment. 62 The Count 1 offence of possessing non-native CITES/regulated specimen is in relation to only four such fish. The facts would appear to indicate that the offender from time to time must have had in his possession various other such live specimens in order to involve himself in the trade, but he can only be sentenced in relation to that which was in fact located on the search warrant, being the four specimens. 63 As to the second count; that is, the abuse of his position as a public official, the only information before the Court is that which he admitted to, and which I have previously referred to. There is no information before the Court as to the extent of any facilitated illegal importations with Mr Murphy, nor indeed, the nature of any individual specimen or its risk to the Australian environment." 1. His Honour allowed a discount for the Applicant's pleas of guilty and addressed the question of an "Ellis discount" (an aspect challenged in Ground 2) (at ROS[64]): "In consideration of all of the facts, I am of the view that in the absence of the offender making relevant admissions to what he had done, the prosecution would have had a limited circumstantial case in relation to that offence. I accept the submission made by Mr Ginges on behalf of the offender that there must be, at least in relation to that offence, an element of an Ellis discount, which of course in the circumstances would apply to each of the offences. I will indicate now that I do not believe that that is something that needs to be dealt with by way of a specified discount, but it will be taken into account. In my view, Count 2 represents an objectively very serious offence. Count 3 is really in effect that the offender was trying to make a financial advantage from the breach of trust evidenced by the charges." 1. Findings were made concerning the Applicant's pleas of guilty and his period on bail (ROS[65]-[66]): "65 I accept that as the offender was committed for sentence on 23 July 2019 from the Downing Centre Local Court that he is entitled to a discount for the utility of the plea. I further accept in view of the admissions made during the course of the record of interview and the plea of guilty that the offender has facilitated the course of justice. In my view, he is entitled to a discount on sentence of 25% as a result of that conduct, and such a discount has been applied. 66 The offender has been on conditional bail since his arrest on 12 November 2018. There is no evidence before me that that was particularly onerous, and of course, as a result, he has not spent any time in custody in relation to any of the offending." 1. His Honour made the following findings concerning the Applicant's assistance to law enforcement authorities (an aspect challenged in Ground 3) (ROS[67]-[72]): "67 I further note in relation to Count 2 that although the offender gave generalised information about what he had done in the past, there is no evidence that he has provided any specific information about the flaws in the Department's procedures, or how the illegal importations with Mr Murphy were achieved. It has been submitted by Mr Ginges on behalf of the offender that he should receive a discount on sentence not only on the basis of Ellis, that is, admitting to matters for which the Crown may not have had a strong case, if a case at all, but also to a discount for assistance to the prosecution. 68 Exhibit 2 is a letter of assistance provided to the Court under the hand of Detective Superintendent Clinton Smith of the Australian Federal Police. From the information provided on sentence, I note that the offender although he was interviewed, declined to assist the prosecution by providing a statement in relation to the conduct of any other person involved in this unlawful conduct. He subsequently, on 23 September 2019, attended a pre-arranged appointment with the Australian Federal Police to provide information which might assist them. The information was in relation to a number of online and physical pet and aquarium shops as well as persons suspected of selling prohibited fish in Australia. The information provided by the offender had been obtained through open source search enquiries on the internet. That appears to me to be information that any other reasonably knowledgeable person would have been capable of acquiring. As a result of the information provided, a report was disseminated to the department, to DAWR. 69 The letter of assistance indicates that he did not provide any new intelligence in relation to: * Suspect corruption or negligence within the department; * Suspect corruption or negligence within the department; * Compromised department information systems; * Avenues where the department practices may be improved to enhance safety, security and function or; * Assistance with further prosecutions relating to the matter for which he is before the Court. 70 His assistance was given a valuation grading of 'low'. He is described as 'not increasing substantially the AFP's information holdings and is of low intelligence value'. Further, that the information he gave did not in any way advance a criminal investigation being conducted, and was 'vague in nature and not from the offender's direct knowledge or expertise'. 71 In addition, the Court was informed by the letter of assistance that the use and value of the information was already compromised, as the offender's court proceedings had appeared in the media and the information provided some eight months after his arrest. 72 I note that the offender was called to give evidence on sentence, and in that evidence, he indicated that he was prepared to provide assistance, although he gave no evidence of the actual assistance that he could further provide. He has had the opportunity since the time of his arrest on 12 November 2018 to provide relevant assistance. He attended on 23 September 2019 for the purpose of providing assistance but provided, in my view, nothing of any real utility or benefit. In my view, in those circumstances, particularly taking into account his failure to disclose during the record of interview, exactly how it is that he and Mr Murphy defeated the system and its flaws. I am not prepared to accept that there can be any appropriate consideration of a discount for assistance." 1. His Honour then recounted the Applicant's subjective matters in detail (ROS[73]-[87]). 2. The sentencing Judge said the following with respect to the Applicant's character (an aspect challenged in Ground 4) (ROS[77]): "As I have previously indicated, he has no previous criminal history, but it is the fact that he had no previous criminal history which of course would have allowed him to become employed by the department and put in a position of high trust which he then abused. In those circumstances, I am of the view that good character is of somewhat more diminished importance than it would otherwise be." 1. The sentencing Judge considered the Applicant's health, risk of reoffending and prospects of rehabilitation (at ROS[88]-[90]): "88 The psychological report and Pre-Sentence Report, in my view, indicate that apart from some depression and anxiety the offender has no significant mental health issues and there is no causative relationship between his anxiety and depression in the past with the commission of the offences. It is entirely usual for offenders faced with coming before the Court to be sentenced for offences that carry terms of imprisonment that they are anxious and depressed. There is no suggestion in the material before me that there is any elevated level of anxiousness and depression resulting from that fact in respect of this offender. 89 I have also taken into account that he was assessed by the psychologist, Mr Rodriguez, as being at a low risk of reoffending, and by the Community Corrections officer, similarly, as being a low risk of reoffending. I accept in the circumstances that those assessments by Mr Rodriguez and Ms Debrezny are appropriate assessments. Indeed, that is further underlined by the fact that the offender has of course now lost his job, and it would seem to be impossible that he would ever be employed in such a position again. I accept that losing his job will no doubt have a significant impact on him, but that is why when holding a responsible and trusted position an individual should not abuse it. He has brought that result entirely on himself. 90 As to the prospect of rehabilitation, I accept in the circumstances, particularly considering his lack of prior offending, even though this offending extended over a significant period of time, that there is a good prospect that the offender will not reoffend." 1. His Honour turned to issues of proportionality, specific deterrence and general deterrence (ROS[91]-[93]): "91 However, it is always necessary for the Court in imposing sentences to impose a sentence which appropriately reflects the objective seriousness of the offences being dealt with. 92 In my view, specific deterrence is not as normally significant in relation to this matter, considering the nature of the charges and the change in the offender's occupation - whatever it may be in the future, it will not be the same - and also taking into account what I have found in relation to remorse, contrition and rehabilitation. 93 However, general deterrence must remain a significant factor for the Court to take into account. Public officials must understand that if they breach the trust placed in them in significant ways, as here, significant sentences will be imposed to ensure that there is an effect of general deterrence and also in acknowledgment of the fact that the sentence must provide adequate punishment for the offence or offences." 1. His Honour found that a sentence of fulltime imprisonment was appropriate in the Applicant's case (an aspect challenged in Ground 1) (ROS[94]-[96]): "94 As I have indicated, I have taken into account the utility of the plea, the facilitation of justice, and an element of an Ellis discount in determining the sentence or sentences to be imposed. I am mindful of the fact that the Court may only pass a sentence of imprisonment on a person for a Federal offence having considered all other available sentences and being satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances, s 17A(1) Crimes Act. 95 A Court is required to weigh all of the relevant factors in order to reach a conclusion of a particular penalty that should be imposed. There is of course no mathematical approach to that as referred in Markarian v The Queen (2005) 215 ALR 213. 96 It is an instinctive synthesis that is required. I am satisfied in relation to this matter, particularly because of the need to reflect a stern element of general deterrence, that a sentence of imprisonment is warranted in respect of each of the three offences." Ground 1 - The Learned Sentencing Judge Erred in Failing to Consider Alternatives to Fulltime Imprisonment Available in Sentencing the Applicant Submissions of the Applicant 1. Mr Ginges, counsel for the Applicant, submitted that, although the threshold under s.17A Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) may have been crossed (after consideration was given to the application of an "Ellis discount"), that approach only addressed the question of whether a term of imprisonment should be imposed and not how such a sentence should be served. 2. Counsel pointed to submissions made in the District Court in support of a conclusion that an alternative to fulltime imprisonment should be utilised in this case by immediate release under a recognisance release order pursuant to s.20(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (as a community-based suspended sentence) or pursuant to s.20AB Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) implementing a State-based sentence such as an intensive correction order ("ICO"). 3. Mr Ginges submitted that the sentencing Judge, having determined that a sentence of imprisonment was warranted, did not then consider whether it could be served other than by fulltime imprisonment with no express finding being made that fulltime imprisonment was warranted (ROS[94]-[96] at [29] above). Whilst his Honour did impose a recognisance release order, that was only by reason of the sentence not exceeding three years and the manner in which the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) prescribed that sentences of imprisonment are to be structured. It was submitted that the sentencing Judge did not consider the suspended sentence option provided by s.20(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). 4. Counsel for the Applicant referred to decisions of this Court, including Douar v R (2005) 159 A Crim R 154; [2005] NSWCCA 455 at [70]-[72] and Fedele v R (2016) 257 A Crim R 78; [2015] NSWCCA 286 at [21] in support of the submission that it was necessary for a sentencing Judge to consider, firstly, whether the offending crossed the threshold such that a term of imprisonment must be imposed with the second step being to determine the length of the sentence (or aggregate sentence) and the third step being to consider whether any available alternative may be appropriate in the circumstances or whether, having considered the alternatives, no alternative other than fulltime custody was appropriate. 5. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the sentencing Judge had properly undertaken the first step in this case with no issue being taken as to his Honour's reasoning process with respect to the second step. It was submitted, however, that his Honour failed to engage in the third step at all so that consideration was not given to use of a suspended sentence under s.20(1)(b) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) or an ICO. 6. In this way, it was submitted that his Honour erred in failing to consider alternatives to fulltime imprisonment in sentencing the Applicant. Submissions for the Crown 1. The Crown submitted that the three-step process relied upon by the Applicant does not apply when sentencing a federal offender to a term of imprisonment. It was submitted that s.17A Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) sets out what a sentencing Judge must have regard to before passing a sentence of imprisonment on a federal offender - namely that, after having considered all other available sentences, the court is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. 2. The Crown submitted that there is no express requirement under Part 1B of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) to consider alternatives to imprisonment once it has been determined that the s.17A threshold has been crossed. The Crown submitted that, whilst s.20AB picks up State additional sentencing alternatives, it provides that a court may pass such a sentence and does not impose an obligation that they must be considered as a sentencing option nor as an alternative to fulltime imprisonment. 3. The Crown submitted that, in sentencing a federal offender, the court must ensure the sentence imposed is "of a severity appropriate in all the circumstances of the offence": s.16A(1) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). 4. The Crown relied upon R v Togias (2002) 132 A Crim R 573; [2002] NSWCCA 363 at [22]-[23] in support of a submission that s.20AB(1A) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) did not require the court to find, as a first step, the length of sentence to be imposed before considering whether (in that case), a sentence involving periodic detention could be utilised. 5. The Crown submitted that the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) differs from the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) in this important respect. 6. The Crown submitted that, in any event, the sentencing Judge had complied with both the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) approach and the three-step process referred to in New South Wales decisions. It was submitted that what occurred here had complied with the approach outlined in Douar v R at [72] and [74]. 7. The Crown relied, as well, upon Kannis v R [2020] NSWCCA 79 at [210]. 8. It was submitted that the sentencing Judge did consider the third stage and had formed the view that nothing short of fulltime imprisonment was appropriate having regard to the objective gravity of the Applicant's offences (ROS[94]-[96] at [29] above). It was argued that the approach taken by the sentencing Judge in this respect should be considered against the submissions made by counsel for the Applicant at the sentencing hearing that, whilst the s.17A threshold may be crossed, it remained appropriate to consider alternatives to fulltime imprisonment. 9. The Crown submitted that a fair reading of his Honour's findings indicated that consideration had been given to sentencing alternatives against the background of submissions made at the sentencing hearing, with the conclusion being reached that fulltime imprisonment was the only appropriate sentence. It was submitted that such a conclusion was open having regard to the objective seriousness of the offences, the significant weight to be given to general deterrence and the requirements for denunciation of the conduct of the Applicant and to ensure he was adequately punished. 10. The Crown submitted that the cases relied upon by the Applicant concerning the use of ICOs in New South Wales can either be distinguished or were otherwise of limited assistance. With respect to the Applicant's reliance upon Fedele v R, it was noted that the Crown had acknowledged in that case that, although custodial sentences were appropriate, a suspended sentence would not be considered manifestly inadequate giving rise to a heightened need for reasons to be given for rejecting not only a suspended sentence, but other alternatives as well. In the present case, it was noted that the Crown submission at all times in the District Court had been that sentences of fulltime imprisonment were appropriate. 11. The Crown submitted that this ground of appeal should be rejected. Decision 1. The Applicant was to be sentenced only for federal offences. The statutory provisions to be considered in his case were those contained in Part 1B Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) including, in particular, s.16A, s.17A, s.20 and s.20AB. 2. Sections 17A and 20AB provide as follows: "17A Restriction on imposing sentences (1) A court shall not pass a sentence of imprisonment on any person for a federal offence, or for an offence against the law of an external Territory that is prescribed for the purposes of this section, unless the court, after having considered all other available sentences, is satisfied that no other sentence is appropriate in all the circumstances of the case. (2) Where a court passes a sentence of imprisonment on a person for a federal offence, or for an offence against the law of an external Territory that is prescribed for the purposes of this section, the court: (a) shall state the reasons for its decision that no other sentence is appropriate; and (b) shall cause those reasons to be entered in the records of the court. (3) The failure of a court to comply with the provisions of this section does not invalidate any sentence. (4) This section applies subject to any contrary intention in the law creating the offence. … 20AB Additional sentencing alternatives (1) A court may pass a sentence, or make an order, in respect of a person convicted before the court in a participating State or participating Territory of a federal offence, if: (a) subsection (1AA) applies to the sentence or order; and (b) under the law of the State or Territory, a court is empowered to pass such a sentence, or make such an order, in respect of a State or Territory offender in corresponding cases; and (c) the first-mentioned court is: (i) empowered as mentioned in paragraph (b); or (ii) a federal court. (1AA) This subsection applies to a sentence or order that is: (a) known as any of the following: (i) an attendance centre order or attendance order; (ii) a community based order; (iii) a community correction order; (iv) a community custody order; (v) a community service order; (vi) a community work order; (vii) a drug or alcohol treatment order or rehabilitation order; (viia) a residential treatment order; (viii) a good behaviour order; (ix) an intensive correction order; (x) an intensive supervision order; (xi) a sentence of periodic detention or a periodic detention order; (xii) a sentence of weekend detention or a weekend detention order; (xiii) a work order; or (b) similar to a sentence or order to which paragraph (a) applies; or (c) prescribed for the purposes of this subsection. (1A) Where the law of a participating State or a participating Territory requires that before passing a sentence, or making an order, of the kind referred to in paragraph (1)(b) a court must first pass another sentence or make another order (whether or not that other sentence or other order is suspended upon the making of the first-mentioned sentence or order), then, a court is not required, before passing or making that first-mentioned sentence or order in respect of a person convicted by that court for a federal offence, to pass that other sentence or make that other order. (1B) A court is not precluded from passing a sentence, or making an order, under subsection (1) only because the court is empowered under section 20AC, in relation to a person who has failed to comply with such a sentence or order, to take action that is, or may be, inconsistent with action that, under the law of a participating State or participating Territory, a court of that State or Territory is empowered to take for such a failure by a State or Territory offender. (2) Where a court proposes to pass a sentence, or make an order, under subsection (1), it shall, before passing the sentence or making the order, explain or cause to be explained to the person in respect of whom it is proposed to pass the sentence or make the order, in language likely to be readily understood by him or her: (a) the purpose and effect of the proposed sentence or order; (b) the consequences that may follow if he or she fails, without reasonable cause or excuse, to comply with the proposed sentence or order or with any requirements made in relation to the proposed sentence or order by or under the provisions of the laws of the relevant State or Territory that will apply in relation to the proposed sentence or order by virtue of subsection (3); and (c) if the proposed sentence or order may be revoked or varied under those provisions--that the proposed sentence or order may be so revoked or varied. (3) Where a sentence or order referred to in subsection (1) is passed or made under that subsection in respect of a person convicted in a State or Territory of a federal offence, the provisions of the laws of the State or Territory with respect to such a sentence or order that is passed or made under those laws shall, so far as those provisions are capable of application and are not inconsistent with the laws of the Commonwealth, apply, by virtue of this subsection, to and in relation to the sentence or order passed or made under subsection (1). (4) Where a court passes a sentence, or makes an order, under subsection (1) in respect of a person convicted of an offence against the law of the Commonwealth, the court may also do all or any of the following: (a) impose any fine or other pecuniary penalty that the court is empowered to impose on the person for the offence; (b) make any order requiring the person to make reparation or restitution, or pay compensation, in respect of the offence that the court is empowered to make; (c) make any other order that the court is empowered to make. (5) Where a court passes a sentence, or makes an order, under subsection (1) in respect of a person, the court shall, as soon as practicable, cause the sentence or order to be reduced to writing and a copy of the sentence or order to be given to, or served on, the person. (6) Subsection (1) does not permit a court (including a federal court) to pass a sentence, or make an order, that involves detention or imprisonment, in respect of the conviction of a person before the court of a minimum non-parole offence mentioned in section 19AG." 1. The decision of this Court in Douar v R was concerned with a State offender and provisions contained in the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW). The offender in Fedele v R was being sentenced for a mixture of Commonwealth and New South Wales offences. 2. It is the case that sentencing alternatives under State legislation may be considered by sentencing courts for federal offences so that application of s.20AB Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) can lead a sentencing court into application of relevant State sentencing legislation. However, the important point is that it is the federal legislation in Part 1B which is to be applied, and in particular s.16A, s.17A, s.20 and s.20AB Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). 3. New South Wales has been a "participating state" for the purpose of s.20AB since 1990: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Ede (2014) 289 FLR 82; [2014] NSWCA 282 at [30]. 4. Some State or Territory laws contain a precondition for the making of an order of a kind described in s.20AB(1AA) that the court must first pass another sentence or make another order (including a suspended sentence or order). A court sentencing a federal offender is relieved of such a precondition by virtue of s.20AB(1A). The court may pass a sentence or make an order applied by s.20AB without first passing the other sentence or making the other order. If a State law requires that a court must first fix an appropriate term of imprisonment before considering whether it should be served by way of periodic detention, s.20AB(1A) is effective to remove that requirement: R v Togias (2002) at [22]-[23]. 5. However, s.20AB(1A) only relieves a court sentencing a federal offender of a "requirement" under State or Territory law to first pass another sentence or make another order. In Togias v R (2001) 127 A Crim R 23; [2001] NSWCCA 522, Spigelman CJ said (at [24]) that s.20AB(1A) should not be read as if the words "requires that … a court must first pass another sentence" encompassed both a negative and positive formulation as these words are negative rather than positive in effect. The words do not have the effect of removing a qualification under State law that a sentence of periodic detention was available only in relation to a sentence of imprisonment not exceeding three years: Togias v R (2001) at [24], [100]-[107]; Johnsson v R [2007] NSWCCA 192 at [17]-[24]. 6. A court sentencing a federal offender is not otherwise relieved of preconditions under State or Territory law that apply to the imposition of a sentence or making of an order applied by s.20AB. If the State law requires the consent of the offender to the making of the order, the same requirement would apply to the sentencing of a federal offender: Shambayati v R (1999) 105 A Crim R 373 at [15]. Similarly, if State law requires a prior assessment that the offender would be suitable for a particular type of order, the same requirement would apply to the sentencing of a federal offender: Fedele v R at [71]-[73], [100]-[101]. 7. If a sentence or order under s.20AB(1) is passed or made in respect of a federal offender, provisions of the laws of the relevant State or Territory with respect to such a sentence or order apply to and in relation to the sentence or order: s.20AB(3). The State or Territory provisions referred to in s.20AB(3) apply "so far as those provisions are capable of application and are not inconsistent with the laws of the Commonwealth". 8. In Atanackovic v R (2015) 45 VR 179; [2015] VSCA 136, the Victorian Court of Appeal (Weinberg, Kyrou and Kaye JJA) held (at [54]-[55], [59], [80]-[87]) that a State provision in relation to a community correction order, which permitted such an order to be combined with a term of imprisonment, was not applicable to the sentencing of a federal offender as it was inconsistent with Part 1B Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). 9. If a federal offender is to be sentenced for more than one federal offence, it is open to impose a period of imprisonment for one offence and an order applied by s.20AB for one or more other offences: Atanackovic v R at [78]-[79]. 10. In Atanackovic v R (at [103]), the Victorian Court of Appeal said that s.17A reflected the well-established principle that imprisonment should be a last resort and that, before imposing a sentence of imprisonment, a sentencing court must consider "all other available sentences and all the circumstances of the case". This Court expressed a similar view concerning s.17A in R v Winchester (1992) 58 A Crim R 345 at 348-349. 11. In R v Fedele, after considering the terms of s.17A and s.5 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) (given that both sections applied in that case), Hidden J (Davies J agreeing) said at [26]: "It will be seen that the two provisions are to the same effect, although subs (2) of the State provision specifically addresses sentences of 6 months or less. Both sections provide that failure to comply with their terms does not invalidate the sentence, but this does not mean that such a failure cannot give rise to appellable error. In respect of the State provision so much is spelled out in s 101A of the CSP Act. In respect of the Commonwealth offence it is established by authority: R v Engeln [2014] QCA 313 at [45] (citing the earlier decision of that court in R v Verburgt [2009] QCA 33)." 1. If a court imposes a sentence of imprisonment, it is required by s.17A(2) to give reasons and have them entered in the record of the court. The obligation to give reasons does not require that the sentencing court give separate and distinct reasons or run through a check list of possibilities and state why each of them is not appropriate: Warnakulasuriya v R [2009] WASC 257 at [33]. The reasons need only adequately explain why no other sentence but one of imprisonment is considered appropriate: Fedele v R at [28]-[36], [39]. 2. In Douar v R, this Court said at [72] and [74] with respect to the explanation to be provided by a sentencing court where a sentence of fulltime imprisonment is to be passed: "72 The third stage is reached once the length of the sentence of imprisonment has been determined. The Court is then to consider whether any alternative to full-time imprisonment is available in respect of that term and whether any available alternative should be utilised. The availability of an alternative to full-time custody will generally be governed by the length of the term that has been determined, subject to the restrictions or preconditions imposed by the legislature on a particular sentencing alternative. The appropriateness of an alternative to full-time custody will depend upon a number of factors; one of importance being whether such an alternative would result in a sentence that reflects the objective seriousness of the offence and fulfils the manifold purpose of punishment. The Court in choosing an alternative to full-time custody cannot lose sight of the fact that the more lenient the alternative, the less likely it is to fulfil all the purposes of punishment: Zamagias at paragraph 28. … 74 Having determined the appropriate sentence, the Court must explain the sentence imposed. This may require, in an appropriate case, some discussion of the alternatives available and why a particular alternative has been chosen. However, it is unnecessary that a sentencing court expressly state that it has applied these two steps in arriving at the sentence imposed. In particular, merely because a court has not expressly indicated that it has taken the two-step approach to the determination of the sentence of imprisonment, it does not follow that it has failed to carry out the sentencing exercise in this manner: Zamagias at paragraph 30." 1. In Kannis v R, this Court said at [210]: "What was said in Douar v R and Fedele v R does not a require a slavish or formulaic approach by a sentencing Judge for the purpose of determining whether a sentence of fulltime imprisonment is appropriate. There are some cases, of course, where the objective gravity of the offences means that a sentence of fulltime imprisonment is inevitable, even allowing for other aspects of the case including an offender's subjective circumstances. In my view, this case fell into that category, as counsel for the Applicant at first instance recognised." 1. I accept the primary submission of the Crown that, in sentencing a federal offender, a court is required to have regard to the relevant provisions of Commonwealth legislation and, in particular, s.16A, s.17A, s.20 and s.20AB Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Caution is required before applying principles emerging from decisions relating solely to State legislation. 2. This does not mean that principles emerging from decisions such as Douar v R and Fedele v R have no application in a case such as this where the Applicant was to be sentenced solely for federal offences. Both s.17A Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and s.5(1) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) are statutory reflections of the general sentencing principle that imprisonment is a sentence of last resort. Section 17A(2) requires a sentencing court to explain why no other sentence than one of imprisonment is appropriate in the particular case. There is no practical difference between the functions being served by s.17A and s.5 in this respect. 3. It has not been demonstrated that the sentencing Judge erred in the manner asserted in the first ground of appeal. Submissions were made at first instance which accepted that the s.17A threshold had been crossed, but with arguments being advanced for the Applicant as to why a sentence other than fulltime imprisonment should be passed and with the Crown arguing consistently that only a sentence of fulltime imprisonment was appropriate in this case. 4. I accept the Crown submission that the proper construction of his Honour's sentencing remarks on this aspect involved a rejection of the defence submission and an acceptance of the Crown submission in the District Court that a sentence of fulltime imprisonment constituted the only appropriate sentencing outcome having regard to the objective gravity of the offences and other factors bearing on sentence, especially general deterrence. This approach complied with the requirements of s.17A Crimes Act 1914 (Cth): R v Engeln [2014] QCA 313 at [44]-[54]. 5. I note, in any event, that although adoption of the three-stage process (referred to in Douar v R) has been emphasised in New South Wales sentencing cases, a failure to approach the matter in this way is not itself indicative of sentencing error: Campbell v R [2018] NSWCCA 87 at [53] (Hamill J, Bathurst CJ and Schmidt J agreeing). 6. To make good this ground of appeal, the Applicant must demonstrate that the sentencing Judge failed to consider sentencing options falling short of fulltime imprisonment. The Applicant has not demonstrated that this is so. Nor has the Applicant demonstrated that his Honour fell into error in some respect in the manner in which he determined the question whether a sentence of fulltime imprisonment was the only appropriate outcome in the circumstances of this case. 7. In the circumstances of this case, it was, in truth, inevitable that a sentence of fulltime imprisonment would be imposed. I will return to this topic when considering the fifth ground of appeal which asserted that the sentence was manifestly excessive. 8. I would reject the first ground of appeal. Ground 2 - The Learned Sentencing Judge Erred in Failing to Give Effect to the "Ellis Discount" Submissions for the Applicant 1. Mr Ginges submitted that an argument had been advanced in the District Court that an "Ellis discount" should be extended to the Applicant with respect to Counts 2 and 3 because, without his voluntary admissions to the AFP, there would have been no (or at least insufficient) evidence to prove either that he had abused his position as a Biosecurity Officer or that the monies in his safe were from the sale of illegally imported fish. 2. It was also submitted that an "Ellis discount" should apply to the Sequence 6 offence concerning the Applicant having stolen five fish from his workplace (three of which were still in his possession at the time of arrest). 3. Counsel for the Applicant referred to submissions made in the District Court on this issue which asserted that the Crown had conceded that, in the absence of the Applicant's admissions to police, there would have been no knowledge of the commission of the offence in Count 2. 4. Although the sentencing Judge had indicated that an "Ellis discount" had been taken into account, it was submitted for the Applicant that a specific discount should have been given for it. Mr Ginges noted that there was some controversy as to whether a sentencing Judge is required to specify an "Ellis discount" with respect to State offences, but conceded that there does not appear to be a requirement to quantify such a discount for Commonwealth offences. 5. Relying upon the judgment of Adams J in Raad v R (2011) 220 A Crim R 471; [2011] NSWCCA 138 at [20], Mr Ginges submitted that the sentencing Judge had erred in his approach to general deterrence, given the finding that an "Ellis discount" should apply. 6. It was submitted that the sentencing Judge had failed to apply his finding that an "Ellis discount" would be taken into account in sentencing for Counts 2 and 3 and Sequence 6. 7. If, contrary to this submission, it was accepted that the sentencing Judge had applied an "Ellis discount" to these offences, it was submitted that the sentencing Judge had erred in providing an inadequate discount. Submissions for the Crown 1. The Crown noted that the principles arising from R v Ellis are reflected in s.16A(2)(h) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The Crown pointed to his Honour's conclusion with respect to the "Ellis discount" and submitted that no error had been demonstrated concerning this approach (ROS[64] at [22] above). 2. With respect to the submission based upon Raad v R concerning general deterrence (see [75] above), the Crown noted that the observations of Adams J were not endorsed by the other members of the Court in that case (McClellan CJ at CL and Buddin J) and that the statement of Adams J had been disapproved of expressly in Younan v R [2012] NSWCCA 155 at [25]. 3. The Crown submitted that, whilst it may aid transparency to quantify any discount applied, failure to identify a discount will not generally provide a ground of appeal: Ryan v The Queen (2001) 206 CLR 267; [2001] HCA 21 at [185]. 4. The Crown submitted that it was appropriate for the trial Judge to have regard to the "Ellis principle" on sentence without quantification and with the value to be given to it to be taken into account as a subjective factor on sentence: R v Dib [2003] NSWCCA 117 at [53]; R v GLB [2003] NSWCCA 210 at [33]. 5. To the extent that the Applicant's submissions in support of this ground asserted that an insufficient discount had been allowed by reference to the "Ellis principle", the Crown submitted that the weight to be given to this factor was a matter for the sentencing Judge and that error has not been demonstrated in this respect. Decision 1. The sentencing Judge had regard to the voluntary disclosures made by the Applicant in accordance with the "Ellis principle" (ROS[64] at [22] above). 2. This aspect was a subjective factor to be taken into account in the Applicant's favour on sentence, but did not require application of a quantified discount. 3. As McHugh J observed in Ryan v The Queen (at [15]), the "Ellis principle" is "a factor to be taken into account" on sentence but it is "not a statement of a rule to be quantitatively, rigidly or mechanically applied". Hayne J stated in Ryan v The Queen (at [144]) that sentencing "is not a mathematical process" and that "metaphorical references to 'credit', 'discount' or the like, must therefore not be taken literally". Hayne J's later reference to the Ellis ground (at [152]-[153]) made clear that there was no requirement to quantify any allowance on sentence by application of the "Ellis principle". Callinan J (at [185]) observed that consideration of voluntary assistance by reference to the "Ellis principle" did not necessarily require a quantified allowance or discount. Gummow J (at [63]) agreed with Callinan J on this issue. 4. In CMB v Attorney General (NSW) (2015) 256 CLR 346; [2015] HCA 9, French CJ and Gageler J (at [40]-[44]) noted s.22 and s.23 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and emphasised McHugh J's observation in Ryan v The Queen that the "Ellis principle" is "not a statement of a rule to be quantitatively, rigidly or mechanically applied". Kiefel, Bell and Keane JJ (at [70]-[78]) referred to s.23 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) and the "Ellis principle" without expressing disagreement with McHugh J's statement in Ryan v The Queen. 5. There was no requirement for the sentencing Judge in this case to quantify any allowance to the Applicant on sentence under the "Ellis principle" for his voluntary disclosure to police. The use of the term "Ellis discount" has the potential to mislead if it is read as requiring a quantified discount, certainly with respect to federal offenders. It is preferable to speak of the "Ellis principle" as a recognised factor to be taken into account as a subjective factor on sentence. As in Ryan v The Queen, it was sufficient for his Honour to take the factor into account in the Applicant's favour on sentence as his Honour stated that he did: R v GLB at [33]. 6. With respect to the Applicant's reliance upon Raad v R, I accept the Crown submission that the statement of Adams J in that decision concerning the relationship between the "Ellis principle" and general deterrence is not correct and should not be followed. Adams J said in Raad v R at [20] (emphasis added): "It is important, in my respectful opinion, to bear in mind that (what might conveniently be called) an Ellis situation gives rise to two distinct matters that need to be taken into account. First, it informs the assessment of remorse and contrition and reduces, potentially to insignificance, the requirement for personal deterrence. It seems to me it also reduces the materiality of general deterrence, since it would be directed to that miniscule class of individuals minded to commit crimes and then admit to them. At the same time, the notions of retribution and denunciation are undoubtedly still of considerable importance. But they are only a part of the answer to the question; 'What does this particular offender deserve?' and are necessarily affected, whether favourably or adversely to the offender, by the whole of the circumstances including - as is typical of the Ellis cases - the marked change in the character and personal attributes of the person being sentenced as distinct from the way that person was when the crime was committed. This is no more than noting the incommensurable character of the factors forming the instinctive synthesis which is ultimately expressed in the sentence. These considerations may be usefully termed the 'Ellis personal features'." 1. I express my agreement with the following statement of Latham J (Hoeben JA and Garling J agreeing) in Younan v R at [25]: "Second, Adams J's observations in Raad were not endorsed by McClellan CJ at CL or Buddin J, both of whom differed from Adams J on the appeal. With respect to Adams J, the italicised remarks seem to misapprehend the principle of general deterrence. One of the purposes of punishment is to signal to others who might be disposed to commit offences of a like kind that severe penalties will be imposed: R v Rushby [1977] 1 NSWLR 594 at 598. The role of general deterrence is not confined to those who, like the applicant, commit an offence and then partially disclose their criminality." 1. The italicised words to which Latham J referred are those emphasised in the passage set out at [88] above. 2. The sentencing Judge was conscious of the operation of the "Ellis principle" in this case. It is important, however, that the role of the "Ellis principle" not be overstated in this case. The Applicant had been under investigation by law enforcement authorities for some time before the execution of a search warrant and his arrest by AFP officers on 12 November 2018. As the Agreed Facts made clear (ROS[25] at [11] above), the Applicant had been detected in telephone intercepts between 2 September 2018 and 5 November 2018 discussing the sale of illegally imported specimens. The Applicant had become aware in March 2018 that his employer Department was conducting controlled purchases of fish as an investigatory measure and had modified his own illegal practices accordingly (ROS[46] at [13] above). The fact that a search warrant was executed on 12 November 2018 upon the Applicant's residence indicated that the AFP were investigating his criminal conduct and were aware of his position as a Commonwealth public official. 3. As the sentencing Judge recognised, the Applicant made admissions which warranted the "Ellis principle" being taken into account in his favour (ROS[64] at [22] above). However, this was a case where application of the "Ellis principle" was to reflect the fact that the Applicant's criminal conduct was already known to the AFP, with his admissions serving to strengthen the prosecution case in the manner identified by the sentencing Judge. 4. The Applicant has not demonstrated error in his Honour's approach to application of the "Ellis principle" in this case. It has not been demonstrated that his Honour failed to apply that factor in sentencing the Applicant. 5. To the extent that it is contended under this ground of appeal that greater weight should have been given to this factor on sentence, I do not consider that this argument assists the claim of error under this ground: Carr v R [2020] NSWCCA 214 at [45]-[49]. I will return to this argument when considering the claim of manifest excess in the fifth ground of appeal, together with other factors relied upon by the Applicant in support of that ground. 6. I would reject this ground of appeal. Ground 3 - The Sentencing Judge Erred in Failing to Give Any Discount on Account of the Applicant's Assistance and Offer to Assist Submissions of the Applicant 1. Mr Ginges submitted that the Applicant had provided assistance to authorities and offered to assist, and that reliance was placed upon these matters in submissions made in the District Court in addition to consideration of the "Ellis principle". It was submitted that his Honour had erred in the approach taken to the Applicant's assistance (ROS[67]-[72] at [24] above). It was submitted that the Applicant had provided real and tangible information in his own interview about the involvement of Sam Murphy, but that his Honour had erred in failing to allow any discount on behalf of the Applicant's information concerning Mr Murphy and Mr Murphy's associate. 2. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the policy objectives behind extending leniency to those who provide assistance to the authorities for the purpose of s.16A(2)(h) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) (R v Perez-Vargas (1986) 8 NSWLR 559 at 562) called for a discount to be applied in sentencing the Applicant in this case. 3. It was submitted that his Honour erred in refusing to provide any discount for the Applicant's assistance. Submissions for the Crown 1. The Crown pointed to the evidence before the District Court concerning the Applicant's provision of assistance to the AFP and noted the assessment of the value of that assistance was "low". It was submitted that it was for the sentencing Judge to assess for himself the level of assistance provided to authorities. 2. In considering the question of discount for assistance to authorities, the Crown referred to the principles summarised by Wigney J in Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd (2019) 137 ACSR 575; [2019] FCA 1170 at [328]-[334]. 3. The Crown submitted that there was no evidence before the sentencing Judge as to the use (if any) made by law enforcement officers of the information provided by the Applicant in November 2018 and there was no basis to assess whether this information was genuine and/or reliable. 4. As to the information given by the Applicant in September 2019, the Crown submitted that it was open to the sentencing Judge to conclude that this attracted no discount for assistance given the contents of the letter of assistance which was before the District Court. 5. The Crown submitted that no error had been established by the Applicant in the approach of the sentencing Judge declining to give a discount for assistance. Decision 1. Section 16A(2)(h) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) requires a sentencing court to take into account the degree to which the person has co-operated with law enforcement agencies in the investigation of the offence or of other offences. It was not submitted for the Applicant in the District Court, nor in this Court, that s.16AC Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) had application to him, with that section relating to a quantified reduction of sentence because a federal offender has undertaken to co-operate in the future with law enforcement agencies. 2. It was a matter for the sentencing Judge to determine how, and in what way, any past assistance provided by the Applicant to law enforcement authorities should be taken into account on sentence. A sentencing court is not required to quantify any discount for past assistance: R v Gallagher (1991) 23 NSWLR 220 at 226-230. 3. It is important to keep in mind, as well, the potential for overlap between several subjective factors where assistance to authorities is involved: R v Gallagher at 227. An overlap of this type arose here given the Applicant's reliance upon the "Ellis principle" as a subjective factor operating in his favour as well as a submission that his assistance to law enforcement authorities called for a discount. 4. The evidence before the sentencing Judge indicated that the Applicant had interacted with the AFP on 12 November 2018 (when he was interviewed after his arrest) and on 23 September 2019 and 20 November 2019 when he approached the AFP in the period before his sentencing hearing. 5. A letter of assistance dated 3 December 2019 was tendered at the sentencing hearing. The letter related to the steps taken by the Applicant on 23 September 2019 and 20 November 2019 and noted that the Applicant did not provide any new intelligence with the evaluation of his assistance being graded as "low". It was stated in the letter that the information provided by the Applicant did not increase substantially the AFP's information holdings and was of low intelligence value and that it in no way advanced a criminal investigation being conducted. The letter stated further that the Applicant's information was vague in nature and was not from the Applicant's direct knowledge or expertise and that the use and value of the information would be compromised as the Applicant's court proceedings had appeared in the media with the information being provided some eight months after the Applicant's arrest. 6. The sentencing Judge considered the evidence bearing upon the Applicant's assistance to authorities (ROS[67]-[71] at [24] above). His Honour then expressed the conclusion in which he declined to allow a discount for assistance (ROS[72] at [24] above). 7. It was a matter for the sentencing Judge to make an assessment of the level of assistance provided by the Applicant and its value. With respect to the information provided in September 2019, the letter of assistance indicated the low value of that material. It was relevant that the information provided in September 2019 came long after the relevant events and was based upon material already in the public arena. 8. The sentencing Judge was required to have regard to objective evidence of the assistance the Applicant had provided, and to make an assessment as to the value to be given to that assistance, with there being no obligation for a sentencing court to quantify a discount for co-operation: Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd at [330]-[333]. 9. His Honour was not bound to extend a discount to the Applicant based upon the assistance he had provided. Nor was the Applicant's position advanced materially by a general indication in his evidence at the sentencing hearing that he was prepared to assist the authorities. As his Honour observed, the Applicant's evidence on 17 December 2019 did not indicate the actual assistance he could give and the Applicant had already had the opportunity since his arrest on 12 November 2018 to provide relevant assistance (ROS[72] at [24] above). 10. The Applicant has not demonstrated error in his Honour's approach to this issue. I would reject this ground of appeal. Ground 4 - The Sentencing Judge Erred in Relying Upon the Applicant's Employment as a Biosecurity Officer to Reduce his Prior Good Character as a Mitigating Factor in Circumstances Where the Applicant's Employment was Already Relied Upon in Proof of an Element (of Count 2) and had not Been Obtained for the Purpose of Committing Any Offences Submissions for the Applicant 1. Counsel for the Applicant noted that the Applicant's character was a factor to be considered in determining sentence under s.16A(2)(m) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). 2. It was submitted that the Applicant had not obtained his employment for the purposes of committing offences and had commenced as a Biosecurity Officer in 2011, five years prior to the commencement of his offending conduct. 3. Counsel for the Applicant relied upon Merhi v R [2019] NSWCCA 322 in support of this ground, contending that the Applicant's prior good character should not have been put to one side as occurred here. The court in Merhi v R considered that, because abuse of trust was relied upon as an aggravating factor, a failure to have regard to Ms Merhi's prior good character constituted a form of impermissible double counting. Whilst the offender in Merhi v R was sentenced for an offence of bribery of a public official contrary to s.141.1(1) Criminal Code (Cth) and the Applicant's offence was one of abuse of public office contrary to s.142.2(1)(a)(iii) Criminal Code (Cth), it was submitted that the principle applies analogously to the Applicant. 4. It was submitted that the Applicant did not use his prior good character for the purpose of committing the offence as he had obtained his employment over five years before the offending and breach of trust of his employer was an element of the Count 2 offence. It was submitted that it was erroneous for the sentencing Judge to rely upon the Applicant's employment as a factor to deny him the benefit of his prior good character on sentence. 5. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the sentencing Judge had reduced the importance of the Applicant's good character because of the offences for which he was being sentenced, contrary to what was said by McHugh J in Ryan v The Queen (at [23]-[25]). It was submitted that, whilst the sentencing Judge did have regard to the Applicant's prior criminal antecedents when considering his prospects of rehabilitation, that was in respect of a separate sentencing factor under s.16A(2)(n) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). 6. In circumstances where it was open to the sentencing Judge to direct that the sentence be served in the community (by way of an ICO or suspended sentence), it was submitted that the failure to allow the Applicant the full relevant benefit of his prior good character had additional significance in this case. Submissions for the Crown 1. The Crown submitted that Merhi v R can be distinguished from the present case. Error had been demonstrated in that case as the sentencing Judge had regard to the offender's breach of trust as an aggravating factor and then reduced the significance of prior good character based on the same factor (at [51]). To the contrary, in the present case, the Crown submitted that his Honour did not deny the Applicant the benefit of prior good character. Rather, the sentencing Judge found it to be "of somewhat more diminished importance" and that, in this regard, his Honour was balancing the Applicant's prior good character with the fact that his lack of previous criminal history allowed him to become a Biosecurity Officer and had put him in a position of high trust which he then abused. 2. It was submitted that the sentencing Judge's approach was consistent with authorities which have held that prior good character is to be afforded less weight than it would otherwise attract in cases where the prior good character of the offender enabled him or her to be in a position in which to commit the offence: R v Obeid (No. 12) [2016] NSWSC 1815 at [94]. 3. The Crown submitted that it was clear from the sentencing remarks concerning the Applicant's prior good character that his Honour was addressing all of the offences, and not merely Count 2 and Sequence 6. The Applicant's employment as a Biosecurity Officer was also relevant to Count 1, Count 3 and Sequence 4 because this was the context in which the Applicant was able to possess, and later sell, the non-native CITES regulated specimens. 4. With respect to the proceeds of crime offence (Count 3), the Crown relied upon R v Huang; R v Siu (2007) 174 A Crim R 370; [2007] NSWCCA 259 at [36] concerning circumstances where prior good character may have less significance for that class of offence. 5. The Crown submitted that his Honour's approach to the Applicant's prior good character was entirely consistent with the statement of McHugh J in Ryan v The Queen (at [25]) that the weight to be given to an offender's otherwise good character will vary according to all of the circumstances. 6. The Crown submitted that this ground ought be rejected. Decision 1. The sentencing Judge was required to have regard to the character of the Applicant for the purpose of determining sentence: s.16A(2)(m) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). The Applicant had no prior convictions. 2. It was the case that the Applicant had been employed in the Commonwealth Public Service since 2011 in a position where good character was a requirement of service. Whilst so employed, the Applicant committed serious offences which included abuse of public office and the misuse of information obtained through his employment for the purpose of committing offences. 3. The sentencing Judge's approach (at ROS[77] at [26] above) did not involve error. In effect, his Honour was observing that the Applicant's prior good character had enabled him to obtain and retain a position in the Commonwealth Public Service which he then abused in various ways by the commission of offences. Having regard to the way in which prior good character may be considered on sentence, error has not been demonstrated in his Honour's approach. 4. In R v Gent (2005) 162 A Crim R 29; [2005] NSWCCA 370, this Court said at [48]-[53]: "48 The prior good character of an offender is relevant to sentence. With respect to federal offences, s.16A(2)(m) Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) requires a court to take into account on sentence, amongst other things, the character and antecedents of the offender: Weininger v The Queen [2003] 212 CLR 629 at 638-640 (paragraphs 27-33). 49 It has been said that there is a certain ambiguity about the expression 'good character' in the sentencing context. Sometimes, it refers only to an absence of prior convictions and has a rather negative significance, and sometimes it refers to something more of a positive nature involving or including a history of previous good works and contribution to the community: R v Levi (NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, 15 May 1997, unreported, BC9703123 per Gleeson CJ at 5); Ryan at 276 (paragraph 27). 50 In Ryan, McHugh J said at 275 (paragraphs 23, 25): 'It is necessary to distinguish between the two logically distinct stages concerning the use of character in the sentencing process. First, it is necessary to determine whether the offender is of otherwise good character. When considering this issue, the sentencing judge must not consider the offences for which the prisoner is being sentenced. Because that is so, many sentencing judges refer to the offender's 'previous' or 'otherwise' good character. … Second, if the offender is of otherwise good character, it is necessary to determine the weight that must be given to that mitigating factor. If an offender is of otherwise good character, then the sentencing judge is bound to take that into account in the sentence that he or she imposes. The weight that must be given to the prisoner's otherwise good character will vary according to all of the circumstances.' See also the statements of Gummow J at 287-8 (paragraphs 67-68), Kirby J at 297 (paragraph 102), Hayne J at 309 (paragraph 143) and Callinan J at 317-8 (paragraph 174). 51 What weight will be given to evidence of good character on sentence depends, to an extent, on the character of the offence committed: R v Smith (1982) 7 A Crim R 437 at 442; Ryan at 309 (paragraph 143). 52 In R v Kennedy [2000] NSWCCA 527, Howie J (Simpson J agreeing) referred to factors which operate to afford less weight to prior good character on sentence. His Honour said at paragraphs 21-22: 'It is unnecessary for the purposes of determining this appeal to consider the circumstances in which a court may legitimately determine that it will give less weight to prior good character as a mitigating factor. Generally speaking such a situation might arise where general deterrence is important, the particular offence before the court is serious and it is one frequently committed by persons of good character. Another situation may be where the prior good character of the offender has enabled him or her to gain a position where the particular offence can be committed. Less weight might also be given to prior good character in a case where there is a pattern of repeat offending over a significant period of time. That will frequently be the case in child sexual assault offences because such offences are often committed during a period of an ongoing relationship between the offender and the complainant.' 53 In Ryan, McHugh J said at 278 (paragraph 33): 'Sentencing is not a mathematical process (Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610 at 624 [46]). Various factors have to be weighed. The otherwise good character of the prisoner is one of them. It is a mitigating factor that the sentencing judge is bound to consider. But the nature and circumstances of the offences for which he or she is being sentenced is a countervailing factor of the utmost importance. The nature of the offences for which the appellant was being sentenced meant that his otherwise good character could only be a small factor to be weighed in the sentencing process'." 1. It is a well-recognised sentencing principle that, in cases involving abuse of public office where the need for general deterrence is especially strong, prior good character is to be afforded less weight than it otherwise would: R v Obeid (No. 12) at [94]. 2. I do not consider that the Applicant is assisted by the decision of this Court in Merhi v R. In that case, it was found that there had been impermissible double counting which gave rise to error. 3. In the present case, his Honour was sentencing the Applicant for a number of offences and it was open to him to take the view that the Applicant's prior good character was "of somewhat more diminished importance than it would otherwise be" because of the position which he occupied in the Commonwealth Public Service and the offences for which he was to be sentenced. 4. No error has been demonstrated in his Honour's approach in this respect. 5. I reject this ground of appeal. Ground 5 - The Sentence Was Manifestly Excessive in all the Circumstances Submissions for the Applicant 1. Mr Ginges submitted that the aggregate sentence imposed upon the Applicant was manifestly excessive. He pointed to the notional starting points for the individual sentences prior to application of the discount for the Applicant's guilty pleas. 2. With respect to Count 1, he submitted that the offence involved the possession of four regulated specimens, with three of the fish having come into the Applicant's possession when he stole five fish from his workplace instead of euthanising them (Sequence 6). Having regard to the small number of fish, the secure way in which they had been cared for (so that they did not represent a risk to the environment) and that they were being possessed for personal (and not commercial) purposes, it was submitted that the offence in Count 1 fell towards the lower end of the spectrum of objective seriousness. Reliance was placed upon the decision in R v Kennedy (2019) 101 NSWLR 121; [2019] NSWCCA 242 at [86](2) in support of a submission that the Applicant's offence did not place at risk any Australian species. 3. It was submitted that a starting point sentence of 16 months' fulltime imprisonment for the Applicant's Count 1 offence was plainly unreasonable or unjust having regard to the circumstances of the offence. 4. With respect to Count 2, although the offending was serious and was aggravated by the period over which it occurred, it was submitted that the objective seriousness of the offence fell below the mid-range of offences captured by that provision which is capable of applying to a wide range of circumstances. It was submitted that the Applicant had voluntarily ceased his offending in respect of Count 2 some nine months prior to disclosing his offending to police in his interview. In these circumstances, it was submitted that application of the "Ellis principle" loomed large with the need for specific deterrence being minimal. In these circumstances, it was submitted that a notional starting point of 32 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. 5. With respect to Count 3, it was submitted that the amount of money in the Applicant's possession was $350.00 over the threshold of $10,000.00. It was, as the sentencing Judge found, an offence at the bottom of the range of objective seriousness. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the money which constituted the proceeds of crime offence arose from the Applicant's personal interest in illegal exotic fish and not a commercial venture or a venture borne of greed. 6. It was submitted that the Applicant's admissions enabled Count 3 to be charged against him so that the "Ellis principle" was a significant factor on sentence for this offence. 7. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that a starting point of 16 months' imprisonment for this offence was manifestly excessive. 8. Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances and that this Court should intervene and resentence the Applicant. Submissions for the Crown 1. The Crown submitted that the Applicant had not demonstrated that the sentence was manifestly excessive. 2. In relation to Count 1 (and Sequence 4), the Crown submitted that the legislature has conveyed the degree of seriousness of an offence under s.303GN EPBC Act by fixing a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment and that general deterrence is a critical sentencing principle with respect to cases under this legislation which involves threats to Australian fish, fauna and biodiversity and warrants stern punishment: R v Kennedy at [85]. The Crown submitted that this Court has said previously that offences contrary to Part 13A EPBC Act would normally attract a fulltime custodial sentence: Morgan v R [2007] NSWCCA 8 at [11]. 3. It was submitted that the offence contained in Count 1 should not be characterised as being of low objective seriousness. The possession offences were serious by reference to the range and number of specimens, the fact that the Applicant used his employment to possess regulated live specimens and because the Applicant's position meant he well understood the potential adverse consequences of his actions, yet he persisted over a significant period of time for his own financial gain. 4. With respect to Count 2 (and Sequence 6), the Crown submitted that abuse of public office is a very serious offence as it involves a betrayal of the trust that the public has placed in public officials and has the potential to undermine public confidence in public officials and public institutions: Retsos v R [2006] NSWCCA 85 at [31]; R v Allan; Ex parte Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions [2016] QCA 270 at [25]; R v Bartels [2018] SASCFC 34 at [33], [75] and R v Gillett [2019] ACTSC 30 at [87]. 5. The Crown submitted that general deterrence is a fundamental consideration when imposing a sentence on a public official who has abused their position: R v Lamella [2014] NSWCCA 122 at [57]; R v Bartels at [76]; R v Gillett at [83]. 6. It was submitted that the Applicant's conduct represented an ongoing breach of trust as it occurred on multiple occasions over a 16-month period. Contrary to the submission for the Applicant, the Crown submitted that the Applicant only voluntarily ceased his offending when he became aware that the Department was conducting controlled purchases of CITES, non-native CITES and regulated specimens and that he may be caught. The Crown submitted that the Applicant's offending in breach of public office was objectively serious. 7. With respect to the proceeds of crime charge (Count 3), the Crown noted that this Court has recognised that general deterrence of a very significant degree is required for proceeds of crime offences: R v Huang; R v Siu at [36]. This offence involved a not insubstantial amount of money being the financial benefits of selling illegally imported fish and the Applicant was well aware that the money was the proceeds of crime. 8. It was submitted that consideration of comparable cases was of limited utility in this case as an aggregate sentence was imposed. In any event, the Crown submitted that consideration of comparative sentences serves to indicate that the sentence imposed upon the Applicant was well within range. 9. The Crown submitted that the Applicant's offences were objectively serious and that general deterrence was of particular relevance, with specific deterrence being less significant for the reasons given by the sentencing Judge. It was submitted that the process of sentencing is an intuitive one and that the sentencing outcome in the present case had not been demonstrated to be manifestly excessive. Decision 1. In Obeid v R (2017) 96 NSWLR 155; [2017] NSWCCA 221 (at [443]), R A Hulme J (Bathurst CJ, Leeming JA, Hamill and N Adams JJ agreeing) summarised the principles to be applied on a sentence appeal where there is a claim of manifest excess: "When it is contended that a sentence is manifestly excessive it is necessary to have regard to the following principles derived from House v R (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 at 505; Lowndes v R (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29 at [15]; Dinsdale v R (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 at [6]; Wong v R (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 at [58]; Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 at [25], [27]; and Hili v R; Jones v R (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 at [59]. • Appellate intervention is not justified simply because the result arrived at in the court below is markedly different from sentences imposed in other cases. • Intervention is only warranted where the difference is such that it may be concluded that there must have been some misapplication of principle, even though where and how is not apparent from the reasons of the sentencing judge, or where the sentence imposed is so far outside the range of sentences available that there must have been error. • It is not to the point that this Court might have exercised the sentencing discretion differently. • There is no single correct sentence and judges at first instance are allowed as much flexibility in sentencing as is consonant with consistency of approach and application of principle. • It is for the applicant to establish that the sentence was unreasonable or plainly unjust." 1. I approach this ground of appeal upon the basis that the Applicant has not made good any of his grounds of appeal challenging particular findings made by the sentencing Judge. No ground of appeal sought to challenge the assessment of objective seriousness made by his Honour with respect to the various offences. 2. In a number of respects, this was an unusual case. The Applicant's offences under the EPBC Act were committed by him at a time when he was a public official occupying a position within the relevant Department which administered the EPBC Act itself. In that capacity, the Applicant acquired knowledge and understanding of the relevant law which he utilised in committing the offences. As the sentencing Judge observed, the Applicant "identified holes or vulnerabilities in the live fish importation system" used by his employer Department and then "exploited them" to his own advantage (ROS[33] at [12] above). The Applicant provided "inside information as to how to avoid detection when importing regulated specimens" (ROS[58] at [21] above). 3. It is true that the Applicant's case may be distinguished from cases such as R v Kennedy, where the offender was committing offences under the EPBC Act for the purpose of substantial commercial profit. That said, the offender in R v Kennedy was not a public official in a position of trust and with responsibilities to administer faithfully the terms of the legislation which the Applicant breached. 4. It is important to view the Applicant's criminality in an overall way, having regard to the individual offences, but also the interrelationship between them. As the sentencing Judge observed, "each of the offences is related" and "involved the offender in abusing the trust that was placed in him as a Senior Biodiversity Officer" (ROS[54] at [21] above). 5. At the hearing in this Court, counsel for the Applicant acknowledged that the possession offences (Count 1 and Sequence 4) were connected intimately with the Applicant's role as a Senior Biosecurity Officer (T13-14, 24 July 2020). 6. The fact that the Applicant may have been bored and disenchanted in some way with his employment provided little assistance to him on sentence when he abused his position of trust in committing these offences. 7. The sentencing Judge had regard to the Applicant's prior good character in a way which accorded with the law. 8. In my view, given the combination of offences committed by the Applicant, it was inevitable that a sentence of fulltime imprisonment would be imposed in this case. These were significant offences under the EPBC Act being committed by a public official who committed an offence as well as abusing his public office. As the sentencing Judge found, the Applicant "used his position of trust to identify weaknesses in the system and assist in facilitating illegal importations for his own financial gain" (ROS[18] at [10] above). There was no realistic prospect of a sentence short of fulltime imprisonment being imposed upon the Applicant in this case. 9. The maximum penalties for the various offences for which the Applicant was to be sentenced provided sentencing yardsticks with respect to the fixing of penalty: Elias v The Queen (2013) 248 CLR 483; [2013] HCA 31 at [27]. The sentencing Judge had regard to these sentencing yardsticks and made appropriate assessments as to the objective seriousness of the various offences. Proper regard was had to the Applicant's subjective circumstances in determining sentence. 10. General deterrence was a very significant factor on sentence in this case. The Applicant was utilising inside knowledge for the purpose of breaching the law which it was his responsibility to administer. It was important that a strong message be sent, through the sentences to be imposed upon the Applicant, to others in public office that criminal abuse of trust would be met by heavy sentences: R v Nikolovska (2010) 209 A Crim R 218; [2010] NSWCCA 169 at [57]; Dwayhi v R (2011) 205 A Crim R 274; [2011] NSWCCA 67 at [110]. The Applicant used and abused his position and specialised knowledge for the purpose of committing the offences: R v Lamella at [34], [57]. 11. I do not consider that the Applicant is assisted by consideration of other sentencing decisions. As noted earlier, the Applicant's case is an unusual one involving a combination of an offence under the EPBC Act and serious offences of engaging in conduct as a public official to obtain a dishonest benefit and money laundering. In addition, there were serious offences to be taken into account under s.16BA Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) which required appropriate recognition on sentence in accordance with the principles in R v Lamella at [48]-[49]. 12. I have had regard to the application of the "Ellis principle" to the Applicant's case. I have already determined that error has not been established as asserted in the second ground of appeal. In considering the ground of appeal which asserts manifest excess, I have given consideration to the application of the "Ellis principle" in this case. I do not consider that this aspect assists the Applicant in his claim of manifest excess. 13. The Applicant did not succeed in the third ground of appeal concerning his assistance. Once again, I have considered that aspect under the umbrella of the ground claiming manifest excess. I do not consider that this aspect, when taken with all other considerations relevant to sentence, assists the Applicant in his claim that the sentence was manifestly excessive. 14. Sentencing is a discretionary process involving a process of instinctive synthesis leading to the formulation of a value judgment as to the appropriate sentence: Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 at [51] (McHugh J). In Munda v State of Western Australia (2013) 249 CLR 600; [2013] HCA 38, French CJ, Hayne, Crennan, Kiefel, Gageler and Keane JJ said at [59] (footnotes omitted): "In Markarian, Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Callinan JJ adopted the explanation of the sentencing discretion given by Gaudron, Gummow and Hayne JJ in Wong v The Queen that the description of the balance struck by a sentence as an 'instinctive synthesis' is not used 'to cloak the task of the sentencer in some mystery, but to make plain that the sentencer is called on to reach a single sentence which, in the case of an offence like the one now under discussion, balances many different and conflicting features'." 1. The sentencing Judge had regard to a wide range of factors which were taken into account in the process of forming a value judgment as to the appropriate aggregate sentence to be passed in this case. It has not been demonstrated that the sentence passed upon the Applicant was manifestly excessive. 2. I would reject the fifth ground of appeal. Conclusion and Orders 1. The Applicant has not made good any of his grounds of appeal. 2. I propose the following orders: 1. grant leave to appeal against sentence; 2. appeal against sentence dismissed. 1. WRIGHT J: I agree with the orders proposed by Johnson J for the reasons his Honour has given. 2. WILSON J: I also agree with Johnson J for the reasons his Honour gives. ********** 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: 26 November 2020