Apted v the Queen

The appellant, Apted, appealed against his sentence following his conviction on five charges of obtaining financial advantage by deception. The trial judge had sentenced Apted to two years’ imprisonment for the first charge, with a head sentence of 18 months and a non-parole period of 15 months, and ordered that sentence to be served cumulatively with a sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment for each of the remaining four charges. The appellant argued that the head sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment, and the order for cumulation of 3 months on the first charge, was manifestly excessive. Apted sought to be re-sentenced on all five charges.

The central legal issue for the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court noted that the appellant had perpetrated a sustained, systematic and calculated fraud over a period of five years, involving 201 transactions. The appellant had obtained financial advantage to the tune of almost one million dollars. The court also considered the principles of totality and proportionality in sentencing. The appeal raised questions about the appropriate sentence for each charge and the manner in which the sentences should be aggregated.

The court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 months, was too high for the first charge. The court also found that the order for cumulation of 3 months on the first charge was excessive. The court concluded that a sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment for the first charge, with total concurrency on the remaining charges, was appropriate. The court found that the sentences on charges 2 to 5 were within an acceptable range.

The court allowed the appeal and re-sentenced the appellant on the first charge to 3 months’ imprisonment, with total concurrency on the remaining charges. The sentences on charges 2 to 5 were confirmed.