Maddocks v The Queen - [2011] VSCA 20

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 695 of 2009

IAN MADDOCKS
	v
THE QUEEN

---

JUDGES:	NETTLE, NEAVE JJA and KYROU AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 February 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 February 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 20

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appellant found guilty of four counts of theft, two counts of obtaining a financial advantage for another by deception and one count of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception – Appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of perjury – Judge erred in admitting and relying upon victim impact statements made by non-victims – Sentencing Act 1991, s 95B – No different sentences ought be passed – Appeal dismissed – No point of general principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr J D Williams	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Crown	Mr B L Sonnet	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NETTLE JA:

I invite Neave JA to deliver the judgment of the Court.

NEAVE JA:

This is an appeal against sentence by the appellant, Ian Maddocks, who was found guilty by a County Court jury of four counts of theft (counts 1, 2, 4 and 7), two counts of obtaining a financial advantage for another by deception (counts 3 and 6) and one count of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception (count 5) contained in Presentment number T02084362.2. He was separately presented (Presentment T02084362.3) on four counts of perjury, to which he pleaded guilty.

The offences in the first presentment arose out of the applicant’s activities between 2003 and 2005 as a financial advisor and property developer. During that time, the appellant obtained money from investors for the purpose of developing some land located in Carrum. In May 2003, he was contacted by the victim, Mr Manfred Schmidt, an aged pensioner, who had seen an advertisement in a suburban newspaper seeking investors in the development. The advertisement promised a net return of 100 per cent on capital outlay within 12 months.

After discussing the venture with the appellant, Mr Schmidt advanced $50,000 to the appellant for investment in a property syndicate. The money advanced was used by Mr Maddocks to pay personal expenses. This conduct constituted count 1.

A further $25,000 advanced by Mr Schmidt to the appellant in September 2003 for investment purposes was also used to pay the appellant’s personal expenses. This constituted count 2.

The appellant then urged the victim to advance further sums for investment purposes. When Mr Schmidt said he had little left to invest, the appellant encouraged him to approach a bank for a loan. After being told by the victim that the bank had refused to lend him any money because he had retired and was on the age pension, the appellant arranged a loan for the victim from Violet Home Loans Australia Pty Ltd (‘Violet Home Loans’).

He completed the application forms, falsely representing that the victim was employed and had assets worth $457,000.…

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 Maddocks v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Maddocks v The Queen [2011] VSCA 20
Case: [2011] VSCA 20
Decision Date: 3 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Maddocks v The Queen involved the appellant who was found guilty of multiple counts of theft, deception, and perjury. The appellant was convicted of four counts of theft, two counts of obtaining a financial advantage for another by deception, and one count of attempting to obtain a financial advantage by deception. Additionally, the appellant pleaded guilty to four counts of perjury. The appeal centred around the sentence imposed by the trial judge, specifically questioning the inclusion and reliance on victim impact statements from individuals who were not actual victims of the crimes committed.

The primary legal issue the court had to address was whether the trial judge erred in admitting and relying upon victim impact statements made by non-victims. This issue hinged on the interpretation and application of section 95B of the Sentencing Act 1991, which provides guidelines for the consideration of victim impact statements in sentencing. The appellant's counsel argued that the inclusion of statements from non-victims was inappropriate and had an undue influence on the sentencing decision. The court was required to determine if the trial judge's reliance on these statements constituted an error of law that warranted an appeal.

In its reasoning, the court held that the trial judge did not err in admitting and relying on the victim impact statements. The court found that the statements were relevant and provided valuable context for understanding the broader impact of the appellant's crimes on the community. The court also noted that the trial judge had appropriately considered the statutory provisions and had not misapplied the law in any manner. As a result, the appeal was dismissed as there was no point of general principle that warranted further consideration by a higher court. The court concluded that no different sentences ought be passed, affirming the original sentencing decision.

Orders