PUTTICK -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2026] WASCA 52 (S)

[2026] WASCA 52 (S) Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : PUTTICK -v- THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA [2026] WASCA 52 (S) CORAM : THOMSON P MITCHELL JA BYDDER J HEARD : ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 5 JUNE 2026 FILE NO/S : CACR 123 of 2025 BETWEEN : GEOFF PUTTICK Appellant AND THE STATE OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Respondent ON APPEAL FROM: Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Coram : BOWDEN DCJ File Number : IND 127 of 2022 Catchwords: Criminal law - Adjustment of other sentences following quashing of conviction of one offence on multi-count indictment - Application of totality principle - Turns on own facts -- 1 of 6 -- [2026] WASCA 52 (S) Page 2 Legislation: Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA), s 30(6) Result: Orders for accumulation and concurrency of remaining sentences adjusted Category: B Representation: Counsel: Appellant : No appearance Respondent : No appearance Solicitors: Appellant : D C Manera Respondent : Director of Public Prosecutions (WA) Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Bonham-Smith v The State of Western Australia [2023] WASCA 146 Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246 -- 2 of 6 -- [2026] WASCA 52 (S) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Page 3 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: 1 On 22 April 2026, the majority of this court allowed Mr Puttick's appeal against his conviction of count 41 on District Court indictment IND 127 of 2022. The court unanimously dismissed Mr Puttick's appeal against his convictions of counts 1 - 13, 20 - 23, 29, 31 - 40 and 43 on that indictment. The court reserved the question of whether it should vary any of the sentences on those counts under s 30(6) of the Criminal Appeals Act 2004 (WA). The parties, who did not seek a further oral hearing, have filed written submissions on that question. 2 The sentence of 3 years' immediate imprisonment imposed for count 41 was the head sentence imposed by the trial judge as part of a total effective sentence of 5 years' immediate imprisonment. That total effective sentence was achieved by an order that the sentence of 2 years' immediate imprisonment imposed for count 29 be served cumulatively on the sentence for count 41, with all other sentences imposed on Mr Puttick to be served concurrently. 3 The sentences imposed for the counts of which Mr Puttick was convicted other than count 41 were imposed at the time he was sentenced for count 41. The orders for accumulation and concurrency for the other offences plainly took into account the sentence for count 41. In these circumstances, this court has power under s 30(6) of the Criminal Appeals Act to vary the sentences imposed on Mr Puttick for counts other than count 41. Counsel for Mr Puttick accepts that some degree of accumulation of the sentences imposed for the remaining offences is required so that the total effective sentence reflects the overall criminality involved in all of that offending. 4 The circumstances of the offences of which Mr Puttick remains convicted are set out in this court's earlier written reasons. As the trial judge found, Mr Puttick played a crucial role in numerous transactions with multiple people over several years. The trial judge also observed:1 [The offending] wasn't isolated. It was prolonged, systematic and only stopped at the point of arrest. There was a degree of planning and sophistication. In some cases, there was use of trust shell companies. You played … a crucial role. You were clearly entrusted to receive significant amounts of money and to return it directly or indirectly to the people who, in essence, had deposited it, therefore laundering it and giving it the appearance of legitimacy. Literally, money laundering was 1 Trial ts 2768. -- 3 of 6 -- [2026] WASCA 52 (S) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Page 4 your business and, clearly, the only inference is that you were purely involved for commercial gain; although, it's not clear, notwithstanding the length of the trial and the evidence given, exactly how much you were to be paid. 5 The trial judge also made findings about Mr Puttick's personal circumstances which, apart from his serious health conditions, were unexceptional. Mr Puttick was 66 years old at the time of sentencing. He had a normal upbringing. He had previously worked in various professional roles. At the time of sentencing, Mr Puttick had been with his partner for about 5 years. He had some positive references from people who regarded his current offending as out of character. He has prior convictions for offences of fraud and improper use of a director's position from 1995 for which a term of imprisonment was imposed.2 None of the above personal circumstances were significantly mitigating. 6 However, Mr Puttick's health conditions represented a significant mitigating factor. Those health conditions included pleural mesothelioma, chronic pain, immunity-induced arthritis, and fibromyalgia. While those complex conditions could be managed in custody, they would clearly make imprisonment unusually arduous. While Mr Puttick was stable at the time of sentencing, mesothelioma is a terminal condition that severely reduces his life expectancy. While there was inherent uncertainty in the timeframe at the time of sentencing, there was a possibility of deterioration within 12 - 18 months and a real prospect that the sentence imposed would exceed Mr Puttick's lifespan.3 7 We would not interfere with any of the individual sentences imposed for the offences of which Mr Puttick remains convicted. However, it is necessary to adjust the orders for accumulation and concurrency to ensure that the total effective sentence bears a proper relationship to the overall criminality involved in all of those offences having regard to all of the circumstances of the case including those personal to Mr Puttick.4 8 Count 41 represented the most serious individual offence of which Mr Puttick was charged, and concerned the largest individual amount of money. The substituted judgment of acquittal for count 41 reduces the overall criminality involved in Mr Puttick's offending. However, the 2 Trial ts 2769 - 2770, State sentencing submissions. 3 Trial ts 2772 - 2774. 4 Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246 [24]. -- 4 of 6 -- [2026] WASCA 52 (S) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Page 5 overall criminality involved in the balance of the offending of which Mr Puttick remains convicted is high. Mr Puttick engaged in a persistent course of planned sophisticated criminal conduct involving many transactions with multiple clients of his money laundering business. While Mr Puttick's very serious health conditions constitute a significant mitigating factor which considerably reduces the total effective sentence that would otherwise be appropriate, some accumulation of the remaining sentences is required. 9 In our view, a total effective sentence of 4 years 6 months' immediate imprisonment reflects the overall criminality involved in counts 1 - 13, 20 - 23, 29, 31 - 40 and 43 of the indictment. We will structure that sentence by making the sentence of 18 months' immediate imprisonment imposed on count 5 the head sentence. The sentences of 18 months' immediate imprisonment imposed on count 21 and count 31 should be served cumulatively upon the sentence for count 5 and cumulatively upon each other. The other sentences should be served concurrently with the sentences for counts 5, 21 and 31, and concurrently with each other. The backdating date of 17 October 2025 should remain unaltered. Mr Puttick should remain eligible for parole. 10 The State submitted that the 3-month sentence for count 43 (failing to comply with a data access order), should be served cumulatively upon other sentences to ensure that there is an appropriate deterrent. While that may often be appropriate,5 it is not a convenient way of structuring the sentences in the particular circumstances of the present case. We have taken account of the way the offence in count 43 increases the overall criminality involved in all of the offending when determining the appropriate total effective sentence. 11 For these reasons, we make the following orders: 1. The trial judge's orders for accumulation and concurrency of the sentences imposed on District Court indictment IND 127 of 2022 are set aside, and the following orders are substituted: (a) The sentences of 18 months' immediate imprisonment imposed on counts 21 and 31 shall be served cumulatively upon the sentence of 18 months' immediate imprisonment imposed on count 5 and cumulatively upon each other. 5 See, for example Bonham-Smith v The State of Western Australia [2023] WASCA 146 [46]. -- 5 of 6 -- [2026] WASCA 52 (S) JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Page 6 (b) The sentences imposed on counts 1 - 4, 6 - 13, 20, 22 - 23, 29, 32 - 40 and 43 shall be served concurrently with the sentences imposed on counts 5, 21 and 31 and concurrently with each other. 2. The new total effective sentence of 4 years 6 months' immediate imprisonment is taken to have taken effect on 17 October 2025. 3. The appellant remains eligible for parole. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. LK Associate to the Hon Justice Mitchell 5 JUNE 2026 -- 6 of 6 --