NSW Caselaw
Court of Criminal Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Pereira v R [2018] NSWCCA 171 Hearing dates: 25 July 2018 Date of orders: 06 August 2018 Decision date: 06 August 2018 Before: Hoeben CJ at CL at [1] Price J at [2] Davies J at [3] Decision: (1) Grant leave to appeal.
(2) Appeal dismissed. Catchwords: SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – obtain money by deception – agent corruptly receive benefit – applicant defrauded employer of $3.2m – whether the sentencing judge erred in finding that the impact of the applicant's offending on the employer was substantial - where employer was a large company making considerable profits over the course of the offending – identifying absent aggravating factors does not mitigate objective seriousness
SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – knowingly deal with proceeds of crime intending to conceal – multiple offences from four courses of conduct - whether sentencing judge erred in finding that the offence was aggravated by breach of trust – where dealing with funds part of the course of conduct involving a breach of trust
SENTENCING – appeal against sentence – whether necessary to determine who of co-offenders instigated the fraud – where both of the co-offenders were willing participants - whether aggregate sentence was manifestly excessive having regard to indicative sentences for each offence – nothing in indicative sentences indicating errors in approach – aggregate sentence imposed within range – appeal dismissed Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) ss 178BD, 192E, 193B, 249B Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990 (NSW) s 28A Cases Cited: Bravo v R [2015] NSWCCA 30 Cahyadi v R [2007] NSWCCA 1; (2007) 168 A Crim R 41 GW v R [2018] NSWCCA 79 Hughes v R [2018] NSWCCA 2 Mills v R [2017] NSWCCA 87 PD v R [2012] NSWCCA 242 R v Brown [2012] NSWCCA 199 R v Crowe [2016] NSWCCA 39 Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74 Thorn v R [2009] NSWCCA 294 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Byran Pereira (Applicant) Crown (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: M Mantaj (Applicant) N Adams (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