Chris Dawn-Manuel v The Queen - [2015] VSCA 212

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0243

CHRIS DAWN-MANUEL	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WHELAN and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 August 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 August 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 212
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Dawn-Manuel [2014] VCC 1810 (Judge Gaynor)

---

CRIME – Sentence – Multiple fraud offences – Specific error – Factual basis of sentence on three of seven counts confused – Sentencing discretion re-opened in respect of sentences for all counts – Appellant re-sentenced – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P F Tehan QC	Patrick W Dwyer
For the Respondent	Ms F L Dalziel	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WHELAN JA:

On 11 August 2014 the appellant pleaded guilty to three offences of obtaining financial advantage by deception, three offences of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception, and one offence of possession of identification information. He also pleaded guilty to two uplifted summary charges, being possession of a controlled weapon without excuse and dealing in property suspected of being the proceeds of crime. A plea hearing was conducted the same day.

As a result of matters raised on behalf of the appellant during that initial plea hearing the judge adjourned the plea in order to obtain a psychiatric report from Forensicare. The prosecutor also indicated that some of the matters raised during the plea would be the subject of further investigation.

The plea hearing resumed on 4 September 2014. The enquiries undertaken by the prosecution revealed that important factual matters put to the court on behalf of the appellant at the initial plea hearing were false.

On 21 October 2014 the appellant was sentenced as follows:

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Obtain financial advantage by deception [Crimes Act 1958 s 82] 10 years [Crimes Act 1958 s 82] 8 months –

2 Attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception [Crimes Act 1958 s 82 and s 321M] 5 years [Crimes Act 1958 s 82 and s 321P] 4 months –

3 Attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception 5 years 3 years Base

4 Attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception 5 years 18 months 6 months

5 Obtain financial advantage by deception 10 years 3 years 2 years

6 Obtain financial advantage by deception 10 years 2 years 1 year

7 Possession of identification information [Crimes Act 1958 s 192C] 3 years [Crimes Act 1958 s 192C] 2 years 6 months

Summary Charge 1 Possession of a controlled weapon without excuse [Control of Weapons Act 1990 s 6(1)] 120 penalty units or 1 year [Control of Weapons Act 1990 s 6(1)] $200 fine –

Summary Charge 2 Dealing in property suspected of being the proceeds of crime [Crimes Act 1958 s 195] 2 years [Crimes Act 1958 s 195] 6 months –

Total Effective Sentence: 7 years’ imprisonment

Non-Parole…

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 Chris Dawn-Manuel v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Chris Dawn-Manuel v The Queen [2015] VSCA 212
Case: [2015] VSCA 212
Decision Date: 12 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Chris Dawn-Manuel v The Queen involved the appellant, Chris Dawn-Manuel, who was convicted of multiple fraud offences. The decision was handed down by the High Court of Australia, which was called upon to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant following his convictions. The appellant appealed against the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, arguing that the sentence was flawed due to a specific error in the factual basis of the sentence on three of the seven counts.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the Court of Appeal had erred in its assessment of the sentence, particularly regarding the confusion in the factual basis of the sentence on three counts. The court was required to determine if the error was significant enough to warrant a re-opening of the sentencing discretion in respect of all counts. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the appellant's appeal raised a point of principle that would warrant the intervention of the High Court.

The High Court found that the Court of Appeal had indeed made an error in the factual basis of the sentence on three counts, which was significant enough to warrant a re-opening of the sentencing discretion. Consequently, the High Court decided to re-sentence the appellant for all counts. The court held that while the error did not constitute a point of principle, it was a material error that affected the fairness and appropriateness of the sentence. Therefore, the sentencing discretion was re-opened, and the appellant was re-sentenced by the High Court. The court concluded that the case did not raise any point of principle that would warrant further intervention beyond the re-sentencing.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the appeal against the sentence, re-opened the sentencing discretion, and re-sentenced the appellant for all counts. The court's decision was based on the material error in the factual basis of the sentence on three counts, which warranted a re-assessment of the entire sentence. The court did not find any point of principle that required further consideration beyond the re-sentencing.

Orders