NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Sigalla v R [2021] NSWCCA 22 Hearing dates: 1 July 2020 Date of orders: 3 March 2021 Decision date: 03 March 2021 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Brereton JA at [2] Cavanagh J at [156] Decision: 1. Extend time for filing the Notice of Appeal to the date on which it was filed. 2. Dismiss the appeal against the convictions. 3. Grant leave to appeal against the sentences and allow the appeal. 4. Quash the sentence imposed by the trial judge and in lieu thereof substitute a sentence of 9 years and 6 months, commencing on 22 November 2016 and expiring on 21 May 2026, with a non-parole period of five years and nine months, expiring on 21 August 2022. Catchwords: CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against conviction – Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 184(2) – Dishonest use of position as director to gain benefit through transfers of funds and issuing of shares – Verdicts of guilty on all twenty-four counts – Whether trial judge misdirected jury as to elements of the offence – Alleged conflation of physical and mental elements – Whether jury required to be directed to be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant did not have an honest belief that he was entitled to the funds paid to him – Appeal against conviction dismissed CRIME – Appeals – Appeal against sentence – Ten year sentence – Whether totality of criminal behaviour wrongly considered before individual sentences for each offence – Whether sentences should have been wholly concurrent – Whether inconsistency of co-offender's sentence gives rise to justifiable sense of grievance – Whether trial judge erred in finding that lack of remorse prevented any prospects of rehabilitation – Appeal against sentence allowed – Sentence quashed and applicant resentenced to aggregate term of nine years and six months Legislation Cited: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 9, 184(2)(a), 206B, 206BA, 1309(1) Crimes Act 1900 (NSW), s 173 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16A(2), 16B Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW), s 21A(2)(m) Criminal Appeal Rules 1952 (NSW), rr 3B, 4 Criminal Code (Cth), ss 2.2, 9.1, 9.5 Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 22(2) Cases Cited: ARS v R [2011] NSWCCA 266 Attorney-General v Tichy (1982) 30 SASR 84 BP v R (2010) 201 A Crim R 379; [2010] NSWCCA 159 Channon v R [2020] NSWCCA 112 Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Beattie (2017) 270 A Crim R 556; [2017] NSWCCA 301 Green v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 462; [2011] HCA 49 Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40 Johnson v The Queen (2004) 78 ALJR 616; [2004] HCA 15 Kwok v R (2007) 175 A Crim R 278; [2007] NSWCCA 281 Lowe v The Queen (1984) 154 CLR 606; [1984] HCA 46 MacLeod v The Queen (2003) 214 CLR 230; [2003] HCA 24 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357; [2005] HCA 25 Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70 MLP v R [2014] NSWCCA 183 Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57 Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR 493; [1998] HCA 7 Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26 R v Barakat [2004] NSWCCA 201 R v Condon (1995) 83 A Crim R 335; [1995] NSWSC 119 R v Dale [2012] QCA 303 R v Falconer [2018] NSWSC 1765 R v Gittani [2002] NSWCCA 139 R v Harris (2007) 171 A Crim R 267; [2007] NSWCCA 130 R v MMK (2006) 164 A Crim R 418; [2006] NSWCCA 272 R v Pan [2005] NSWCCA 114 R v Perrin [2018] 2 Qd R 174; [2017] QCA 194 R v Rossi (1988) 142 LSJS 451 R v Sigalla [2017] NSWSC 52 R v Simpson (2001) 53 NSWLR 704; [2001] NSWCCA 534 R v Tadrosse (2005) 65 NSWLR 740; [2005] NSWCA 145 Re Hiss 333 NE 2d 429 (1975) Thorn v R (2009) 198 A Crim R 135; [2009] NSWCCA 294 Vaovasa v R (2007) 174 A Crim R 15; [2007] NSWCCA 253 WC v R [2016] NSWCCA 173 WLP v R [2014] NSWCCA 183 Zaidi v Health Care Complaints Commission (1998) 44 NSWLR 82; [1998] NSWSC 335 Texts Cited: DA Thomas, Principles of Sentencing (2nd ed, 1979, Heinemann) Category: Principal judgment Parties: Andrew John Sigalla (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: J Stratton SC, A Cook (Applicant) P McDonald SC, T Epstein (Respondent)
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate