R v Hinton [2002] NSWCCA 405

Reported Decision : (2002) 134 A Crim R 286

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : R v Hinton [2002] NSWCCA 405 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60414/02 HEARING DATE(S) : 17/09/2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 4 October 2002

PARTIES : Regina v Rebecca Valma Hinton JUDGMENT OF : Wood CJ at CL at 1; Sully J at 2; Howie J at 3

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 01/11/1027 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Solomon DCJ OFFICER :

COUNSEL : G. Farmer - Applicant C. Craigie SC - Respondent SOLICITORS : Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - Applicant Sydney Regional Aboriginal Corporation Legal Service - Respondent CATCHWORDS : Criminal Practice and Procedure - Sentence - Impact of imprisonment of mother on child - whether exceptional circumstance - whether justified a suspended sentence - Social Security fraud - importance of general deterence. Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - ss 16A(2)(p), 20(1)(b), 29D LEGISLATION CITED : Justices Act 1902 - s 51A Criminal Appeal Act 1912 - s 12 Edwards (1996) 90 A Crim R 510 Muanchukingham (1990) 52 A Crim R 354 CASES CITED: Delcaro (1989) 41 A Crim R 33 R v Togias [2001] NSWCCA 522 R v Zamagias [2002] NSWCCA 17 DECISION : See paragraph 39.

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60414/02

WOOD CJ at CL SULLY J HOWIE J

FRIDAY 4 OCTOBER 2002 R v Rebecca Valma HINTON Judgment 1 WOOD CJ at CL: I have read in draft the judgment of Howie J. I agree with the orders proposed, and with the reasons of his Honour. 2 SULLYJ: I agree with Howie J. 3 HOWIE J: On 17 May 2002 the respondent was convicted by Solomon DCJ of sixteen counts of defrauding the Commonwealth contrary to s 29D of the Crimes Act (Cth). The maximum penalty prescribed in respect of each of those offences is 10 years imprisonment or a fine of $110,000 or both. In respect of each offence she was sentenced to imprisonment for two and a half years. His Honour then made an order that the respondent be released upon her entering into a recognisance pursuant to s 20(1)(b) of the Crimes Act conditioned (1) that she be of good behaviour for 2½ years and (2) during that period that she place herself under the supervision and guidance of the Probation and Parole Service. His Honour also ordered that the respondent make reparation to the Commonwealth. 4 The Crown appeals against that sentence asserting that it is manifestly inadequate. In support of that overall submission the Crown relies upon what are said to be three particular errors made by the sentencing judge as follows: