Upadhyaya v R [2017] NSWCCA 162

Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Upadhyaya v R [2017] NSWCCA 162 Hearing dates: 15 March 2017 Decision date: 07 July 2017 Before: Leeming JA at [1]; Latham J at [24]; Campbell J at [25]. Decision: (1) Refuse leave to amend to add particular (d) of the existing proposed ground of appeal as an additional ground; (2) Otherwise grant leave to appeal; (3) Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: CRIMINAL APPEAL – sentence appeal – appeal against aggregate sentence – fraud – corporate victim – where applicant the director of the corporate victim operating two horse studs – where applicant falsely inflated invoices for hay and oats – where primary judge made a direction under s 97 Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) – whether aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive – consideration of the use of comparative cases in sentencing – consideration of the effect of compensation directions in mitigation of sentence – consideration of whether counsel can raise a new argument before the Court of Criminal Appeal that could have been raised before the primary judge – leave to raise new argument refused – leave to appeal otherwise granted – appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999 (NSW) Criminal Appeal Act 1912 (NSW) Victims Rights and Support Act 2013 (NSW) Cases Cited: Attorney General of New South Wales v Tho Services Limited (in liquidation) (ACN 000 263 678) [2016] NSWCCA 221 Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2 Betts v The Queen (2016) 90 ALJR 758; [2016] HCA 25 Chen v R [2015] NSWCCA 122 De Angelis v The Queen [2015] NSWCCA 197 Dinsdale v The Queen (2000) 202 CLR 321; [2000] HCA 54 Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194 Hili v The Queen; Jones v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45 House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 199 Lu v R [2014] NSWCCA 307 Markarian v The Queen (2005) 228 CLR 357 Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120; [2011] HCA 39 Mundine v R [2017] NSWCCA 97 R v Brough [1995] 1 NZLR 419 R v Kalache (2000) 111 A Crim R 152; [2000] NSWCCA 2 R v Hawker [2001] NSWCCA 148 R v Martin [2005] NSWCCA 190 R v Phelan (1993) 66 A Crim R 446 R v Stanbouli (2003) 141 A Crim R 531 R v Tadrosse (2005) 65 NSWLR 740 R v Woodman [2001] NSWCCA 310 The Queen v Kilic (2016) 91 ALJR 131; [2016] HCA 48 The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39 The Waterways Authority v Fitzgibbon [2005] HCA 57; 79 ALJR 1816 Wainohu v New South Wales (2011) 243 CLR 181; [2011] HCA 24 Wong v The Queen; Leung v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64 Zreika v R (2012) 223 A Crim R 460; [2012] NSWCCA 44 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Rajesh Chimanlal Upadhyaya (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: