Appropriate Sentence for Misconduct of Public Officer

DPP v Faure [2022] VCC 613 (10 May 2022)

The defendant has been charged for misconduct in public office and attempting to pervert the Court of Justice.  The maximum penalty in respect of each of the first 4 charges is 10 years’ imprisonment, and for charge 5 the maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment.  The Court, in determining the appropriate sentence, assessed the personal circumstances of the defendant. 

Facts:

Paul Jayden Faure you have pleaded guilty to 4 charges (Charges 1-4) of Misconduct in Public Office, contrary to Common Law, and 1 charge (Charge 5) of Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, also contrary to Common Law.  Charges 1-4 are founded upon you holding a position in public office because you were a serving member of Victorian Police. 

In the course of performing your duties as a police officer, you obtained the personal details of 3 women and 1 female child.  You then used those personal details to have personal communication with these individuals and went on to form inappropriate friendships.

In respect of two of the women, you engaged in a sexual relationship with them.  Once your misconduct was discovered and investigated, you contacted one of the women and the child and tried to influence them to conceal their dealing with you from those investigating your misconduct. 

That influence and attempted influence is the subject of charge 5 of attempting to pervert the course of justice.  At the time of the first offence you were 23 years old and in a long term relationship. You were employed by Victoria Police, having been sworn in as a Police Officer on 24 April 2015.

Charge 1 relates to your misconduct with Adele Roberts between the 27 June 2016 and 31 January 2017.  The misconduct particularised in Charge 1 is that you abused your position and authority for personal gain by forming an inappropriate friendship with Ms Roberts.  

Charge 2 relates to your misconduct with Sienna Argyle between 6 and 13 April 2017.  The misconduct particularised in charge 2 is that you abused your position and authority for personal gain by forming a friendship with Ms Argyle in pursuit of a sexual relationship and abusing trust by sending a sex recording to a third person without the consent of Ms Argyle.

Charge 3 relates to your misconduct with Isabelle McManus between 7 and 28 April 2017.  Charge 3 is particularised as you wilfully misconducting yourself by abusing your position and authority for personal gain by forming a friendship with Ms McManus and engaging in sexual intercourse on Victoria Police premises.  

Charge 4 relates to your misconduct with Lisa Charles between 13 September and 15 November 2017.  The misconduct in Charge 4 is particularised as you abusing your position and authority for personal gain by forming a friendship with Ms Charles and wilfully neglecting your duty to record your investigative actions relating to Ms Charles’ complaint.

You resigned from the Police Force on 12 June 2018.  On 9 March 2021 you were charged on summons.  Your committal mention hearing was on 9 August 2021, and you indicated you would plead guilty to these offences.  Your plea hearing proceeded in this Court on 11 April 2022.

Issue:

Whether or not the maximum penalties should be adjudicated upon the defendant. 

Applicable law:

Summary Offences Act 1966 s 41 - the Court must not impose a sentence that is more severe than that which is necessary to achieve the purposes for which a sentence is imposed. 

R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; (2007) 16 VR 269 - provides for sentencing considerations. 

Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; (2013) 249 CLR 571 - where the traumatic and deprived background of the defendant engages the principles herein. 

R v Schwabegger [1998] 4 VR 649 - relied upon in holding that "the delay in you being charged has not been adequately explained by the Prosecution and there is some ‘incongruity’ between the Prosecution claim that the offending is serious and at the same time taking so long to bring the charges before the Court." 

Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342 - relied upon in holding that "such a sentence may in particular circumstances be suitable for relatively serious offences which might otherwise have attracted medium terms of imprisonment."

Analysis:

Your early childhood circumstances are properly characterised as traumatic and deprived.  You had an older brother and younger sister but you were exposed as child to your parents using heroin and cannabis and frequent family violence that necessitated police and medical interventions.  At the age of four you were removed from parental care and initially placed with an Aunt before being placed into foster care.  You were placed in two or three different foster homes between the ages of four and eight.

Your psychologist noted that your spouse terminated your 11 year relationship with her in November 2020, in the context of discord arising from the current Court matter.’  Whilst Psychologist Sandra Cokorilo assesses your prospects of reoffending as low, she observes that your insight into the extent of your misconduct remains poor, and there would be ongoing benefit from specialised interventions to promote your understanding of your own behaviour and reduce the risk of any further transgressions. 

Conclusion:

The total effective sentence is in effect that you will have to comply with a Community Corrections Order for 3 years, and perform 375 hours of unpaid community work, and comply with directions relating to treatment and rehabilitation relating to your mental health. You are required to report to the Werribee Community Corrections Service at 87 Synnot Street Werribee before 4 pm on 12 May 2022.