Pollock v WA

[2011] WASCA 133

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Resentencing after retrial
4. › Rule of restraint
5. › Whether sentencing judge entitled to depart from sentences imposed at first trial
6. › Whether first trial sentences manifestly inadequate
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 409(1)(d)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Fraud
4. › Large scale commercial fraud
5. › Immediate imprisonment versus suspended sentences
6. › General deterrence
7. › Whether suspended sentences appropriate for serious commercial fraud
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Totality principle
4. › Multiple offences of fraud
5. › Whether total effective sentence a just and appropriate measure of total criminality
1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Mitigating factors
4. › Delay between offence and sentence
5. › Whether delay by itself is mitigatory
6. › Double jeopardy as sentencing consideration

Quick Take

Suspended sentences and fines are manifestly inadequate for large-scale systematic commercial fraud involving over $3 million, even where the offender has favourable personal circumstances and there is no definite finding of ultimate financial loss. General deterrence is the dominant sentencing consideration for fraud striking at the heart of commercial financing systems. The principle of double jeopardy is not a separate sentencing consideration when resentencing after retrial but is subsumed within the rule of restraint.