Legal Research
Cases
Broomhall v Tasmania

Broomhall v Tasmania

Case [2023] TASCCA 2 14 March 2023

Appeal

Sentencing

Jurisdiction

Statutory Construction

Criminal Law

Statutory Interpretation

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

[2023] TASCCA 2

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION:	Broomhall v Tasmania [2023] TASCCA 2
PARTIES:	BROOMHALL, Jacqueline Maree
v
STATE OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	3101/2022
DELIVERED ON:	14 March 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	7 March 2023
JUDGMENT OF:	Blow CJ, Estcourt J, Geason J
CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law – Appeal and new trial – Appeal against sentence – Sentence manifestly excessive or inadequate – Computer related fraud – Public servant misappropriated $398,000 over eight years – Sentence of three years' imprisonment with one year suspended and non-parole period of one year not manifestly excessive.

R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102, 16 VR 269; Brown v The Queen [2020] VSCA 212, 62 VR 491, referred to.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [3521]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: C Scott
Respondent: R Lancaster

Solicitors:

Appellant: Logan & Partners
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number:	[2023] TASCCA 2
Number of paragraphs:	35

Serial No 2/2023

File No: 3101/2022

JACQUELINE MAREE BROOMHALL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT	COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL BLOW CJ ESTCOURT J GEASON J 14 March 2023
Order of the Court (7 March 2023):
Appeal dismissed.

2 No 2/2023
File No: 3101/2022

JACQUELINE MAREE BROOMHALL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
BLOW CJ
14 March 2023

1             The appellant, Jacqueline Broomhall, misappropriated a substantial sum of money in the course of her employment in the Tasmanian Health Service. In September 2022 she pleaded guilty to one count of insertion of false information as data, one count of computer related fraud, two counts of forgery, and two counts of uttering. The total amount misappropriated by her was $398,534.28. She misappropriated money on over 300 occasions during a period of a little over eight years, between November 2008 and February 2017. On 23 September 2022 Jago J sentenced her on the six charges to three years' imprisonment, with one year of that sentence suspended, and a parole ineligibility period of one year.
2             Ms Broomhall appealed against that sentence, contending that it was manifestly excessive. This Court heard that appeal on 7 March 2023 and dismissed it, reserving its reasons for publication at a later date.
3             Although the notice of appeal did not assert any specific error on the part of the learned sentencing judge, counsel for the appellant argued that her Honour did not give sufficient weight to the application of the principles discussed by the Victorian Court of Appeal in R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102, 16 VR 269. For the same reasons as those now stated by Estcourt J, I concluded that the Verdins principles had not been given insufficient weight, concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and joined in the order dismissing the appeal.
3   No 2/2023

File No 3101/2022

JACQUELINE MAREE BROOMHALL v STATE OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

ESTCOURT J 14 March 2023

4 This appeal against sentence…

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 Broomhall v Tasmania

Details

AGLC: Broomhall v Tasmania [2023] TASCCA 2
Case: [2023] TASCCA 2
Decision Date: 14 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal of Tasmania considered an appeal against sentence brought by the Crown against Mr. Broomhall, who had been convicted of computer related fraud. The respondent, a public servant, had misappropriated $398,000 over a period of eight years. The sentencing judge imposed a term of three years' imprisonment, with one year suspended, and set a non-parole period of one year.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was manifestly excessive or inadequate, thereby justifying intervention on appeal. The Crown argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offending, the duration of the fraud, and the significant breach of trust involved.

The Court of Criminal Appeal affirmed the sentencing judge's decision, finding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The Court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and the breach of trust, but also took into account mitigating factors, including the respondent's age, his prior good character, and the fact that he had pleaded guilty. The Court applied the principles of sentencing, balancing the need for punishment and deterrence with considerations of rehabilitation and individual circumstances. The Court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate sentences for such an offence, and therefore dismissed the Crown's appeal.

Orders