Jamieson v the Queen - [2014] VSCA 294

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0165

ROSE JAMIESON

THE QUEEN

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH and WHELAN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	18 November 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 November 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSCA 294
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Jamieson [2014] VCC 1016 (Judge Lacava)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Application of Verdins principles – Depression – Offences of a repetitive nature over protracted period – Expert opinion that causal link between offending and depression – Judge entitled to reject opinion as to centrality of depression to offending – Limited extent to which depression could reduce moral culpability – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr S Gillespie-Jones	Taylor Whelan & Whelan
For the Respondent	Mr T Gyorffy QC	Office of Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA

WHELAN JA:

On 24 June 2014 the appellant, Rose Jamieson, pleaded guilty to four counts of theft and four counts of attempted theft. A plea hearing was conducted that day in which evidence was called from people close to Ms Jamieson as to her character and personal history, from a social worker who had been counselling her after her arrest for the offences, and from a psychiatrist who had conducted a medico-legal assessment for the purpose of the plea, Dr Lester Walton.

The maximum penalty on each of the attempted theft counts was five years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty on each of the theft counts was 10 years’ imprisonment. Ms Jamieson was sentenced to an aggregate sentence on all charges of 2½ years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months. The judge declared pursuant to s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 that had she not pleaded guilty he would have imposed a sentence of 4½ years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years. An order was made for compensation in favour of the Department of Human Services.

The offences to which Ms Jamieson pleaded guilty were all ‘rolled-up’ charges. In total they concerned 394 discrete incidents over the period between 22 December 2010 and 7 November 2012.

Ms Jamieson was aged 25 to 27 at the time of the offending and 28 at the time of sentence.

On 1 December 2008 Ms Jamieson began employment with the Department of Human Services in an administrative role. When widespread flooding caused damage and loss in Northern Victoria in December 2010 and January 2011 the State government provided assistance by way of emergency relief. Part of that assistance involved the provision of debit cards in various denominations to those in need enabling them to access money through automatic teller machines using a PIN provided with the card. Between December 2010 and April 2011 Ms Jamieson was seconded to the organisation implementing this emergency relief. Whilst seconded in that position she began stealing the debit cards and PINs. She continued stealing the cards after she returned to her normal duties. Over the period of her offending she stole 356 debit cards.…

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 Jamieson v the Queen

Details

AGLC: Jamieson v The Queen [2014] VSCA 294
Case: [2014] VSCA 294
Decision Date: 19 November 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jamieson v the Queen, the appellant, Mr. Jamieson, appealed against his sentence, arguing that the trial judge had not adequately considered the impact of his depression on his offending. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining the appropriate weight to be given to the appellant's depression in assessing his moral culpability and determining his sentence. The central legal issue before the court was whether the trial judge had erred in not sufficiently considering the appellant's depression as a mitigating factor in sentencing.

The court considered the principles established in Verdins, which set out the approach to be taken when assessing the impact of a mental condition on moral culpability. The court noted that while the appellant's depression was a relevant factor, it was not necessarily determinative of the sentence to be imposed. The court found that the trial judge had not erred in rejecting the expert opinion that the appellant's depression was central to his offending, as the expert's opinion was not supported by the evidence. The court also noted that while depression could be a mitigating factor, it could not completely absolve an individual of moral culpability for their actions.

In light of the above, the court concluded that the trial judge had not erred in the sentence imposed on the appellant. The court found that while the appellant's depression was a relevant factor to be considered, it did not absolve him of moral culpability for his actions. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court emphasised that while mental health conditions may be a mitigating factor in sentencing, they cannot completely absolve an individual of responsibility for their actions. The court's decision serves as a reminder that the principles established in Verdins must be applied with care and consideration of the individual circumstances of each case.

Orders