Maddock v The Queen - [2020] VSCA 271

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0015

ANTHONY EDWARD MADDOCK	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P and WEINBERG JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 October 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 October 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 271
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2019] VCC 2213 (Judge C Ryan)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Four charges of theft – Applicant franchise broker – Four separate victims – Offending spanned period of about 15 months – Total stolen just over $216,000 – Aggregate sentence of 2 years with non-parole period of 15 months – Whether sentence and non-parole period manifestly excessive – Sentence well within range – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant:	Ms A M Kapitaniak and Mr P J Smallwood	Robert James Lawyers
For the Respondent:	Ms D I Piekusis QC	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
WEINBERG JA:

On 27 August 2019, the applicant, Anthony Maddock, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to four charges of theft. A plea hearing was conducted on 17 December 2019. On 19 December, he was sentenced as follows:

Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum
Sentence

1 Theft [s 74 — Crimes Act 1958] 10 years Aggregate sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment

2 Theft [s 74 — Crimes Act 1958] 10 years

3 Theft [s 74 — Crimes Act 1958] 10 years

4 Theft [s 74 — Crimes Act 1958] 10 years

Non-parole period: 1 year and 3 months

Pre-sentence detention declared: 2 days

Section 6AAA statement: 3 years’ imprisonment, with a non‑parole period of 2 years

By notice dated 15 January 2020, the applicant seeks leave to appeal against both the head sentence, and the non-parole period, on the sole ground of manifest excess. The particulars to that ground are:

(a)Those sentences were each manifestly too long; and
(b)The wrong type of sentence was imposed.

For the reasons that follow, we would refuse leave to appeal.

Circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences

At the time of the offending, the applicant was the sole director of ‘SF Global Pty Ltd’, a company registered in Victoria. He operated a business called ‘Solutions Franchising Group’. That business involved facilitating the purchase and sale of ‘Coffee Club’ franchises, particularly in Western Australia.

The victims of charge 1 were Mr Deepak Chawla and his wife, Roshni. They contacted the applicant in late 2014 to express their interest in purchasing a Coffee Club franchise in Western Australia.

In February 2015, the applicant met with Mr and Mrs Chawla in Western Australia. Mr Chawla requested details concerning the business plan, and sought the provision of cash flow documents. The applicant told him that before he could release those documents, a deposit of $22,000 would have to be paid into his trust account.

On 2 March 2015, Mr Chawla paid that sum into the trust account. Solutions Franchising Group issued a receipt to Mr Chawla.

On…

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 Maddock v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Maddock v The Queen [2020] VSCA 271
Case: [2020] VSCA 271
Decision Date: 29 October 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Maddock, the applicant, appealed against the sentence imposed following his conviction for four charges of theft. The applicant, a franchise broker, stole from four separate victims over a period of about 15 months, with the total stolen amounting to just over $216,000. The sentence imposed was an aggregate of 2 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months. The applicant argued that the sentence and non-parole period were manifestly excessive.

The court considered whether the sentence and non-parole period were manifestly excessive. The court noted that the offending was not of the worst kind, and the applicant had shown genuine remorse and insight into his offending. The court also noted that the sentence was well within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such offences. The court concluded that the sentence and non-parole period were not manifestly excessive.

Accordingly, the court refused leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant's appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence stood. The applicant's sentence of 2 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months remained in place.

Orders