Maddock v The Queen

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.