Regina v Bojan [2003] NSWCCA 45

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Bojan [2003] NSWCCA 45 HEARING DATE(S) : 26/02/03 JUDGMENT DATE : 28 February 2003

JUDGMENT OF : O'Keefe J at 1; Bell J at 23 DECISION : Leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS : Criminal law - Appeal - Severity - Breach of parole - Backdating of sentence - No appearance of double punishment - Amount of money involved only one factor in determining seriousness - Criminal scheme - Serious deception LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1900; ss 178A, 178BA, Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999; ss 47(1)(a), 47(2), 47(3) Regina v Deeble (NSWCCA, 19 September 1991, unreported) CASES CITED : Regina v Kaiva (NSWCCA, 9 November 1998, unreported) Regina v Jones (NSWCCA, 30 June 1994, unreported) Regina v Loh ([2000] NSWCCA 23, unreported) PARTIES : Regina Kandiah Bojan FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60071/02 COUNSEL : Mr A Haesler - Applicant Dr P J P Power SC - Crown SOLICITORS : Mr D J Humphreys - Applicant Ms S E O'Connor - Crown

LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 01/11/1134 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Kinchington DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

- 8 - IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60071/02

O'Keefe J Bell J

28 February 2003 Regina v Kandiah Bojan Judgment

O'KEEFE J:

Introduction 1 Following verdicts of guilty found by a jury consequent on a trial in the District Court, Kandiah Bojan (the Applicant) was sentenced on 15 February 2002 to a term of imprisonment for three years with a non parole period of two years on each of four counts of obtaining money by deception contrary to s 178BA of the Crimes Act 1900. The offences were committed during the period from 1 April to 23 April 2001. The sentences were backdated so as to commence on the date on which the Applicant had been convicted – namely 25 January 2002, and were ordered to be served concurrently. As a consequence the non parole period is due to expire on 24 January 2004. The maximum penalty provided in respect of each offence is imprisonment for five years. 2 The Applicant gave notice of appeal in relation to both his convictions and the severity of his sentences. However, he subsequently gave notice of abandonment of the appeal in respect of his convictions, advising that he wished to proceed only on the appeal against the sentences imposed on him. 3 The ground of appeal relied on is that the sentences were manifestly excessive and that lesser sentences were warranted in the circumstances.