Jordan v The Queen - [2002] TASSC 121

[2002] TASSC 121

CITATION: Jordan v R [2002] TASSC 121

PARTIES:  JORDAN, Christine Corrie
  v
  R

TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION:  APPELLATE
FILE NO/S:  CCA 78/2002
DELIVERED ON:  20 December 2002
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATES:  5 November 2002
JUDGMENT OF:  Slicer, Evans and Blow JJ

CATCHWORDS:

Criminal Law - Appeal and new trial and inquiry after conviction - Appeal and new trial - Appeal against sentence - Grounds for interference - General principles - Sentence manifestly excessive in the circumstances.

Aust Dig Criminal Law [1003]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
           Appellant:  D J Geason
           Respondent:  M S Cox
Solicitors:
           Appellant:  Butler McIntyre & Butler
           Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2002] TASSC 121
Number of Paragraphs: 26

Serial No 121/2002
File No CCA 78/2002

CHRISTINE CORRIE JORDAN v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

SLICER J (DISSENTING)
EVANS J
BLOW J
20 December 2002

Orders of the Court

Appeal allowed.

Sentence of 18 months' imprisonment quashed and a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment substituted, with a parole eligibility period of 6 months.

Serial No 121/2002
File No CCA 78/2002

CHRISTINE CORRIE JORDAN v THE QUEEN

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

SLICER J
20 December 2002

The appellant seeks review of a sentence of imprisonment of 18 months following her conviction for the crime of stealing, contrary to the Criminal Code, s234. She had pleaded guilty to the theft of $15,000 during the period February 1999 until August 2000.

The appellant had been employed as a cashier by a large retail store and as such held a position of trust. Her position enabled her to access the company's computer system which, in turn, recorded transactions conducted by her as cashier. She was able to conceal her keeping of moneys shown as "cash refunds" by creating false records and entering fake data into the computer system. She did so on some 80 occasions over a period of 18 months. Security officers became suspicious and, following an audit, her misconduct was discovered and she was dismissed from her position. In August 2000, Ms Jordan was interviewed by police and admitted responsibility. She entered some pleas of guilty to charges laid in the court of petty sessions and it was said that she pleaded guilty to the totality of the indictment once her legal advisers were satisfied that the evidence and documentation established the amount stated as stolen.

In his comments on passing sentence, the learned sentencing judge regarded her actions as:

"… planned and sustained criminal conduct persisted in for a lengthy period and should not be regarded as an isolated lapse or an error of judgment. … involve[d] a breach of trust."

He took into account her age, remorse, plea and responsibility for the care of two children aged 13 and 15. He placed little significance on a prior conviction recorded in 1987. He imposed a sentence of imprisonment for 18 months and made a compensation order in the sum of $15,000.…

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 Jordan v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jordan v The Queen [2002] TASSC 121
Case: [2002] TASSC 121
Decision Date: 20 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Criminal Appeal heard an appeal by Christine Corrie Jordan against her sentence following her conviction for theft, contrary to the Criminal Code, s 234. The appellant had been employed as a cashier and had stolen $15,000 over an 18-month period by creating false records in the company's computer system. The primary ground of appeal was that the sentence of 18 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive. The court examined the nature of the crime, the appellant's position of trust, her remorse, and her responsibility for the care of two children. The court found that while the crime was serious and warranted a term of imprisonment, the sentence imposed was at the higher end of the appropriate range but not manifestly excessive. However, the court considered that the sentence could justifiably have been a little less. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was reduced to 12 months' imprisonment, with a parole eligibility period of 6 months.

Orders