Comparative cases
206․ The Crown provided a schedule of cases said to be comparable. The schedule included cases involving s 131.1(1) of the Criminal Code as well as those said to be of comparative value for the purposes of s 73A. Counsel for Mr McBride identified an additional comparable case.
Section 131.1(1)
207․ So far as the offence of theft contrary to s 131.1(1) of the Criminal Code is concerned, the cases provided were not very comparable at all. That may simply be a product of the fact that the present circumstances were unusual.
208․ Chia v The Queen [2018] WASCA 103 related to misappropriation of Centrelink payments. It is not usefully comparable.
209․ R v Jafari [2017] NSWCCA 152 involved a solicitor responsible for managing a trust for a disabled person. The solicitor misappropriated $220,000. There was limited evidence of remorse or contrition and the offender had a gambling addiction. He was given a sentence of three years’ imprisonment, to be released after 18 months upon entry into a recognizance to be of good behaviour.
210․ Della-Vedova v R [2009] NSWCCA 107 involved a long-serving member of the ADF who misappropriated 10 rocket launchers. The offender had no criminal record and his ADF service record was impressive. He was given a six-year sentence with a non-parole period of four years on the theft charge.
211․ Peterson v R (District Court (NSW), Hanley DCJ, 30 November 2020, unrep) was a charge which proceeded summarily involving theft of tools and equipment from Air Services Australia. It was not usefully comparable.
212․ Generally speaking, because of the different circumstances of these cases, they do not have much value as comparable cases. Although the circumstances in Jafari are very different to the present case, they did involve a gross breach of trust by a lawyer and, in that respect, Jafari is comparable to some extent.
Section 73A
213․ The schedule of cases provided by the Crown indicates that there have been no previous prosecutions for an offence against s 73A(1) of the Defence Act. The schedule did identify some cases involving the disclosure of material contrary to laws of the Commonwealth.
44
