Legal Research
Cases
Grenfell v R

Grenfell v R

Case [2009] NSWCCA 162 12 June 2009

Type to search within this case.

NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION:
GRENFELL, Richard Gerald v R [2009] NSWCCA 162

FILE NUMBER(S):
2007/15899

HEARING DATE(S):
2 June 2009

JUDGMENT DATE:
12 June 2009

PARTIES:
Richard Gerald Grenfell (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF:
Campbell JA Latham J Harrison J

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:
District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S):
2007/11/0652

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:
Puckeridge DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION:
21 February 2008 (date of sentence)

COUNSEL:
M J Johnston (Appellant)
W J Abraham QC (Respondent)

SOLICITORS:
S O'Connor, Solicitor for Legal Aid New South Wales (Appellant)
A Powell, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – applicant pleaded guilty to social security fraud committed over 28 year period involving creation of false identity and in excess of $200,000 – applicant 77 years old and suffering from progressive optic atrophy, hypertensive nephrosclerosis and lumbo sacral degeneration - effective non-parole period of 2 years 8 months for all counts to be served concurrently – whether sentencing judge erred in failing to consider legislative change concerning s 29D of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and s 135.1(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) – whether insufficient weight given to applicant’s medical condition and disabilities – whether sentences manifestly excessive – no error found.

LEGISLATION CITED:
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth)
Criminal Appeal Act 1912
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth)
Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Act 1999 (Cth)

CATEGORY:
Principal judgment

CASES CITED:
Charkawi v R [2008] NSWCCA 159
Bick v R [2006] NSWCCA 408
R v De Vroome (1987) 38 A Crim R 146
R v Hinton [2002] NSWCCA 405, (2002) 134 A Crim R 286
R v Keir [2004] NSWCCA 106
R v Purdon (Court of Criminal Appeal, 27 March 1997, unreported)
R v Ronen [2006] NSWCCA 123, (2006) 161 A Crim R 300
R v Smith (1987) 44 SASR 587
R v Sopher (1993) 70 A Crim R 570
Rutkowskyj v R [2008] NSWCCA 10
SZ v R [2007] NSWCCA 19, (2007) 168 A Crim R 249
TYN v R [2009] NSWCCA 146

TEXTS CITED:

DECISION:
Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT:

IN THE COURT OF
CRIMINAL APPEAL

2007/15899
CAMPBELL JA
LATHAM J
HARRISON J
12 June 2009

GRENFELL Richard Gerald v R

Judgment

CAMPBELL JA: I agree with Harrison J, concerning grounds 2 and 3, but give my own reasons concerning ground 1.
In R v Ronen [2006] NSWCCA 123, (2006) 161 A Crim R 300 the charges against the Appellants concerned a conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth of taxation revenue. The maximum penalty under the sections of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) that applied to any such conspiracy was 20 years imprisonment. Those provisions of the Crimes Act were replaced by s 135.4 Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), which created a variety of offences connected with conspiracy to defraud, and provided for them a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years. It was in relation to the replacement of…

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 Grenfell v R

Details

AGLC: Grenfell v The Queen [2009] NSWCCA 162
Case: [2009] NSWCCA 162
Decision Date: 12 June 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grenfell v R involved the applicant, who pleaded guilty to engaging in social security fraud over a period of 28 years. This included the creation of a false identity and resulted in a financial loss in excess of $200,000. The applicant, aged 77 at the time of sentencing, was suffering from several health conditions, including progressive optic atrophy, hypertensive nephrosclerosis, and lumbo sacral degeneration. The applicant was sentenced to an effective non-parole period of 2 years and 8 months, which was to be served concurrently for all counts. The primary issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to consider legislative changes concerning sections 29D of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) and 135.1(2) of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), whether insufficient weight was given to the applicant's medical condition and disabilities, and whether the sentences were manifestly excessive.

The court considered the arguments presented by the applicant's counsel but found no error in the sentencing judge's decision. The court examined the legislative changes referenced and determined that they did not apply to the applicant's case. Regarding the applicant's medical condition and disabilities, the court found that the sentencing judge had adequately taken these into account in the overall sentencing process. The court also assessed the sentences and concluded that they were not manifestly excessive, given the gravity of the crimes committed. The sentencing judge had considered various factors, including the applicant's age, health, and the nature of the offences, and had reached a balanced and fair outcome.

The reasoning and analysis provided by the court demonstrate a thorough consideration of the issues raised by the applicant. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence and had not erred in any material way. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court's decision provides guidance on the factors that should be considered when sentencing an elderly offender with significant health issues, as well as the application of relevant legislative provisions.

Orders