Gordon v Macarthur

Case [2019] QDC 15


DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Gordon v Macarthur [2019] QDC 15

PARTIES:

JANE GORDON
(appellant)

v

CONSTABLE M. MACARTHUR
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal 155/18

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Appeal under s 222 Justices Act 1886 (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

Southport Magistrates Court

DELIVERED ON:

15 February 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Southport District Court

HEARING DATE:

14 February 2019

JUDGE:

Muir DCJ

ORDER:

The appeal is dismissed

LEGISLATION:

District Court of Queensland Act 1967 (Qld), s 118

Justices Act 1886 (Qld), s 222, s 223, s 225

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s12

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where applicant was sentenced on a plea of guilty to two counts of fraud – where applicant appealed against sentence on the ground that sentence imposed was manifestly excessive because a conviction was recorded – whether the sentencing judge erred in exercising discretion to record a conviction under s 12 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld)

Buse v Commissioner of Police [2018] QDC 90
Harris v R (1954) 90 CLR 652
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Matta v Australian Competition & Consumer Commission [2000] FCA 729
R v Bain [1997] QCA 035
R v Bowley [2016] QCA 254
R v Briese: ex-parte Attorney General [1997] QCA 010
R v Brown; Ex Parte Attorney-General [1994] 2 Qd R 182
R v Bryant [2005] QCA 19
R v Bulmer [2000] QCA 248
R v Cay, Gersch and Schell; Ex-parte A-G (Queensland) [2005] QCA 467
R v CBQ [2016] QCA 125
R v Clemments [2010] QCA 38
R v Condoleon (1993) 69 A Crim R 573
R v Docherty [2009] QCA 379
R v Fullalove (1993) 68 A Crim R 486
R v Goodger [2009] QCA 377
R v Lawley [2007] QCA 243
R v McConnell [2018] QCA 107
R v Miles [2006] QCA 556
R v Morse (1979) 23 SASR 98
R v Sanders [2007] QCA 165
R v Tout [2012] QCA 296
R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398
R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102
R v Yarwood [2011] QCA 367
Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489

COUNSEL:

Mr J McNab for the appellant

I Quinn (sol) for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Kroesen & Co Lawyers for the appellant

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

Introduction

  1. This is an appeal under s 222 of the Justices Act 1886 (Qld) (“the Act”) against the sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Magistrate at the Southport Magistrates Court on 23 May 2018.  On that date, the appellant was convicted on her own pleas of guilty of two charges of fraud as an employee pursuant to s 408C(1)(d)(2)(b) of the Criminal Code.  At sentence, the Magistrate imposed one fine of $5,000 for the offences.[1] Convictions were recorded.

    [1]The payment of which was referred to the State Penalties Enforcement Registry.

  1. By her notice of appeal filed 18 June 2018, the appellant submits the recording of convictions against her “in all the…

Continue reading Gordon v Macarthur

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gordon v Macarthur [2019] QDC 15
Case
[2019] QDC 15
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Gordon v Macarthur, the appellant contested the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to two counts of fraud. The court was required to determine if the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge erred in deciding to record a conviction under section 12 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). The appellant argued that the recorded conviction resulted in an overly harsh sentence, considering his previous good character and the nature of the offence.

The court examined the statutory provisions and case law governing the imposition and review of sentences. It considered the principle that a sentencing judge has broad discretion in determining whether to record a conviction, subject to any relevant statutory guidelines. The court noted that the judge had considered the appellant's plea of guilty, the impact of the fraud on the victims, and the appellant's prior criminal history in arriving at the sentence.

After a thorough review of the sentencing process, the court found that the judge had exercised their discretion appropriately and in accordance with the law. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that there was no error in recording the conviction. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.