Our client came before the Magistrates Court to be sentenced for numerous traffic offences, together with an allegation that he had unlawfully accessed information during the course of his public sector employment. Unfortunately, despite both the defence and prosecution agreeing that fines were the appropriate penalty, the magistrate was not so easily persuaded. Her Honour made clear that imprisonment was very much on the table and, to make matters worse, raised the prospect of the prosecution filing further unlawful access charges because multiple acts were alleged in the statement of material facts.
In other words, what had been expected to be a fairly contained sentencing exercise suddenly developed teeth. In preparation for the sentencing hearing, we obtained detailed character references and supporting materials designed to maximise our client’s prospects of retaining his liberty.
At the commencement of the hearing, the prosecution confirmed that no additional charges had been filed. However, it submitted that the Court could still have regard to the whole of the statement of material facts when determining penalty. We took issue with that approach.
Our position was that the prosecution was required to identify precisely which parts of the material facts it alleged constituted the offence before the Court. That argument had an important practical effect: it significantly narrowed the criminality for which our client could properly be punished. In relation to the traffic offences, our task was to demonstrate disparity. We directed her Honour to relevant Court of Appeal decisions involving seasoned traffic offenders who had committed similar offences, often in more serious circumstances, yet still received suspended terms of imprisonment. The message was simple: if those offenders avoided immediate custody, then our client should not be sent there either.
Ultimately, careful preparation and a willingness to fight the point made the difference. Despite the Court initially indicating that jail was on the cards, we succeeded in avoiding an immediate custodial sentence for our client.
The result: our client kept his liberty in circumstances where imprisonment had been very much in play.