Leighton v The Queen

[2017] ACTCA 55

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Leighton v The Queen

Citation:

[2017] ACTCA 55

Hearing Date:

8 November 2017

DecisionDate:

30 November 2017

Before:

Mossop and Jagot JJ, and Robinson AJ

Decision:

Appeal dismissed. The sentences are confirmed.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL – Appeal against sentence – sentence not manifestly excessive – appeal dismissed

APPEAL – APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF FURTHER EVIDENCE – Verdins principles not satisfied – further evidence does not satisfy identified thresholds – application dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1900 (ACT)

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 308

Supreme Court Act 1933 (ACT), s 37N(3)

Cases Cited:

Browne v The Queen [2006] ACTCA 15

Jovanovic v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 29
R v Evans [2017] ACTSC 218
R v Leighton [2016] ACTSC 354
R v Savanhu [2017] ACTSC 217
R v Schofield [2016] ACTSC 98

R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 269

Parties:

Joshua Leighton (Appellant)

The Queen (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

In person (Appellant)

Mr S Drumgold (Respondent)

Solicitors

Self-represented (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 1 of 2017

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             ACT Supreme Court

Before:  Burns J

Date of Decision:          4 November 2016

Case Title:  R v Leighton

Citation: [2016] ACTSC 354

THE COURT:

The sentence

1. Joshua Leighton pleaded guilty to 23 counts of theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). On 4 November 2016 the primary judge sentenced Mr Leighton to a total of four years’ imprisonment and set a non-parole period of 19 months to commence on the first day of imprisonment, 4 November 2016, and to end on 3 June 2018 (R v Leighton [2016] ACTSC 354).

1. Mr Leighton, who was represented for his hearing on sentence but unrepresented for this appeal against sentence, contends that the sentence was too severe having regard to three matters, being:

(a)    the alleged extortion to which he was subjected by Timothy McLeod, the employee of the ACT Public Trustee with whom the thefts were arranged;

(b)    the alleged blackmail and extensive domestic violence to which Mr Leighton was subjected in his prior relationship; and

(c)    Mr Leighton’s mental health history.

The primary judge’s remarks on sentence

1. The primary judge noted that a “comprehensive Statement of Facts” was tendered (at [2]).  He summarised the thefts in these terms (also at [2]):

The thefts arise from a fraud against the Public Trustee of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) (the Public Trustee) whereupon you received monies paid from the Public Trustee into your bank account for purported maintenance work on client properties. You did not undertake that work. The monies were deposited pursuant to an arrangement between yourself and an employee of the Public Trustee, who for present purposes I will identify as UN [Mr McLeod]. You were a tradesperson who had previously conducted a small amount of legitimate work on client properties for the Public Trustee.

1. At [3] his Honour noted:

These thefts occurred between 26 March…