McLaren v R [2021] NSWCCA 12

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: McLaren v R [2021] NSWCCA 12 Hearing dates: 17 June 2020 Decision date: 15 February 2021 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Rothman J at [2] Hamill J at [3] Decision: (1) Leave to appeal granted. (2) Appeal against sentence allowed. (3) Quash the sentences imposed by the District Court in relation to the (17) offences of obtaining a financial advantage by deception and in lieu thereof: The applicant is sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 years commencing on 11 July 2017 and expiring on 10 July 2029 with an aggregate non-parole period of 9 years. The applicant will first become eligible for release on parole on 10 July 2026. Pursuant to s 53A(2)(b) of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, confirm the following indicative sentences for the individual offences: (i) Sequence 1: 4 years, 6 months. (ii) Sequence 10: 4 years. (iii) Sequence 11: 4 years. (iv) Sequence 22: 3 years, 9 months. (v) Sequence 23: 4 years. (vi) Sequence 32: 6 years. (vii) Sequence 38: 4 years. (viii) Sequence 43: 1 year, 6 months. (ix) Sequence 44: 4 years, 6 months. (x) Sequence 46: 6 years, 9 months. (xi) Sequence 47: 3 years, 9 months. (xii) Sequence 48: 6 years. (xiii) Sequence 51: 6 years. (xiv) Sequence 57: 2 years. (xv) Sequence 73: 2 years, 3 months. (xvi) Sequence 74: 5 years. (xvii) Sequence 76: 4 years. (4) For the offence of dealing with proceeds of crime, confirm the concurrent fixed term of 7 years and 6 months commencing on 11 July 2017 and expiring on 10 January 2025. Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - fraud offences - dishonestly obtain by deception - multiple counts - extremely serious example of fraud - judgment on sentence - emotive and pejorative language - whether appropriate balance in sentencing proceeding maintained - whether judge "transmogrified" into "champion of victims" - judicial detachment - temperance - "pep talk" to media - judicial function - whether subjective circumstances disregarded - manifestly excessive aggregate sentence - whether plainly wrong or unjust Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), ss 192E(1)(b), 193B(2) Cases Cited: Barbaro v R; Zirilli v R (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2 Berryman v R [2017] NSWCCA 297 De Angelis v R [2015] NSWCCA 197 Decision Restricted [2019] NSWSC 1109 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 Gaffney v R [2009] NSWCCA 160 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 Ibbotson (a pseudonym) v R [2020] NSWCCA 92 Johnston v R [2017] NSWCCA 53 Kentwell v The Queen (2014) 252 CLR 601; [2014] HCA 37 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29 McKittrick v R [2014] NSWCCA 128 Pereira v R [2018] NSWCCA 171 PG v R [2017] NSWCCA 179; (2017) 268 A Crim R 61 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26 R v Albert [2019] NSWDC 869 R v Burke [2002] NSWCCA 353 R v Clarke [2019] NSWDC 2 R v Dimitri De Angelis [2013] NSWDC 79 R v Kennedy [2019] NSWDC 359 R v Nykolyn [2012] NSWCCA 219 SHR v R [2014] NSWCCA 94; (2014) 241 A Crim R 544 Siwek v R [2017] NSWCCA 178 Strbak v The Queen [2020] HCA 10; (2020) 280 A Crim R 285 Stroud v R [2019] NSWCCA 249 Whyte v R [2019] NSWCCA 218 R v Moore (NSWCCA 12 April 1994, unreported) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Hamish Earle McLaren (Applicant) Regina (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: G Wendler (Applicant) F Veltro (Respondent)