BARANDRECHT v Ranford - [2001] WASCA 202

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

CITATION: BARANDRECHT -v- RANFORD [2001] WASCA 202

CORAM: McKECHNIE J

HEARD: 25 MAY 2001

DELIVERED : 25 MAY 2001

FILE NO/S: SJA 1013 of 2001

BETWEEN: DONALD GEOFFREY BARANDRECHT
Appellant
AND
BRETT RANFORD
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Sentencing - 54 counts of stealing and fraud - Gambling addiction - Term of 2 years - Whether excessive - Whether sentence should be suspended

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Appeal allowed
Suspended imprisonment order substituted

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Mr J B Hedges
Respondent: Mr S P Pallaras QC

Solicitors:

Appellant: Bruce Havilah & Associates
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Nil

Case(s) also cited:

Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; (2000) 175 ALR 315
Latham v The Queen [2000] WASCA 338
Pain v Forbes [2000] WASCA 260
R v Barrick (1985) 81 Cr App R 78

McKECHNIE J:

Introduction

This is an appeal from a sentence of 2 years imprisonment imposed without parole.

Facts

The appellant pleaded guilty to 52 related counts of stealing as a servant and fraud. In each instance the appellant had been a teacher at Maranatha Christian College. He removed items from the school, including musical instruments, science equipment, radio cassette players, compact disc players and video recording equipment which he then pawned.
He did this in order to feed a gambling addiction which has afflicted him over many years and been the cause of previous convictions.
The items of stolen property were recovered and it would appear that arrangements were made for restitution.

The decision of the Magistrate

The appellant came before Mrs Bennett-Borlase SM on 16 January 2001. In addition to the facts, the learned Magistrate was supplied with a psychological report and several references. The psychological report disclosed that he had sought help for his gambling addiction prior to the commission of these offences.
The references from his church indicated that there were people within that community who were prepared to offer him assistance and friendship.
Her Worship imposed a total sentence of 2 years imprisonment without parole, made up of 6 months imprisonment cumulative on the first four offences and thereafter concurrent sentences on the balance of offences.
She stated her reasons for doing so as follows:
"I can find no mitigating circumstances here where I should not move to imprisonment. You have had previous opportunities in the past to address your problem. You have chosen not to do so. The report may or may not have suggested to me that you should have a community based option, but because of the fact that even 4 years ago, you weren't complying, you knew of your problem. You've known of your problem for the long time.
The community should no longer pay for your problem. You should do something about it. Otherwise you will end up with longer and longer periods of imprisonment. There are 52 charges here, both of stealing from the school as a servant which is extremely serious…

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 BARANDRECHT v Ranford

Details

AGLC: BARANDRECHT v Ranford [2001] WASCA 202
Case: [2001] WASCA 202
Decision Date: 25 MAY 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Barandrecht v Ranford, the defendant was convicted of 54 counts of stealing and fraud, with the primary motivation behind these offences being a severe gambling addiction. The matter was brought before the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with assessing the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the lower court. The defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 years, which he argued was excessive and should be suspended in favour of an alternative sentence.

The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing in criminal law, specifically whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in light of the defendant's personal circumstances and the nature of the crimes committed. The court also needed to determine if the sentence was excessive and whether it should be suspended in favour of an alternative sentence.

In reaching its decision, the Court of Appeal found that the lower court had appropriately considered the defendant's personal circumstances, including his severe gambling addiction, when determining the appropriate sentence. The court held that the sentence of 2 years imprisonment was not excessive and was proportionate to the seriousness of the crimes committed. The court also found that there were no grounds for suspending the sentence in favour of an alternative sentence. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders