Akkala v The Queen - [2012] VSCA 29

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0447

RAMA AKKALA	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	WEINBERG JA and CAVANOUGH AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	31 January 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	29 February 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 29
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v Akkala (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Harbison, 26 November 2010)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Obtaining financial advantage by deception – Single rolled-up charge – Sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of two years and six months – Sentence manifestly excessive – Appeal allowed – Resentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of one year and nine months fixed – No point of principle

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr C B Boyce	Leanne Warren & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr B Sonnett	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WEINBERG JA:

The appellant, Rama Akkala, now aged 33, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Mildura to a single rolled-up count of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. He was sentenced to a term of four years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months. He now appeals against that sentence.

In March 2006, the appellant obtained employment with the Bank of Western Australia. Within a relatively short time, he had been promoted to the position of team leader within the lending services team at the bank. In that capacity, he supervised several other employees.

Between 6 March 2008 and 7 January 2009, the appellant caused a series of transfers of funds to be made across a number of different accounts. By means of these transfers, he misappropriated a total of $312,471.07. He did so through 14 separate transactions, involving transfers of sums ranging between $6,500 and $58,400.

The accounts into which these various amounts were transferred were held in the names of the appellant’s friends. He falsely told those friends that the money that had entered their accounts actually belonged to him or, in some cases, that it had been mistakenly deposited.

It was not until January 2009, when the bank became suspicious of one of those withdrawals in the amount of $38,200, that the appellant’ offending was detected. An investigation was launched. Initially, the appellant lied to the bank’s investigator, claiming that he had been asked to effect the transaction. Eventually, however, he admitted having stolen the money, and offered to pay it back. He did not, at that stage, reveal his other criminal offending.

Subsequently, when interviewed by the police, the appellant made a ‘no-comment’ record of interview. In due course, he was charged with offences relating to each of the 14 unauthorised transactions. His committal proceeded by way of hand-up brief. He did not at that stage enter a plea.

In July 2010, the appellant ultimately pleaded guilty. The sentencing judge observed that although the plea was not offered at the first available opportunity, and…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Akkala v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Akkala v The Queen [2012] vsca 29
Case: [2012] VSCA 29
Decision Date: 29 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Akkala v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of obtaining financial advantage by deception, a single rolled-up charge. The appellant was sentenced to four years and six months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and six months. The appellant appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was appropriate and whether the non-parole period was justified.

The court had to consider the principle of proportionality in sentencing and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court examined the nature of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the impact of the crime on the victims. The court also considered the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation and the need for deterrence. The court noted that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive and that the non-parole period did not reflect the appropriate balance between punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The court allowed the appeal and resentenced the appellant to three years and six months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of one year and nine months. The court emphasised that the new sentence was proportionate to the offence and reflected a fair balance between punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court concluded that no point of principle arose from the decision, and the appeal was resolved on the basis of the sentence being manifestly excessive.

Orders