Mooney v The Queen

Case [2018] ACTCA 24

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Mooney v The Queen

Citation:

[2018] ACTCA 24

Hearing Date:

18 May 2018

DecisionDate:

29 June 2018

Before:

Mossop, Loukas-Karlsson and Charlesworth JJ

Decision:

The appeal is dismissed.

Catchwords:

APPEALS – CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – obtain property by deception – obtain financial advantage by deception – use false document – use of comparable cases as sentencing pattern – accumulation of sentences – concurrency of sentences – non parole period – whether totality of sentence is manifestly excessive –  whether individual sentence is manifestly excessive.

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) s 7

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 326, 332, 347

Cases Cited:

AB v The Queen [1999] HCA 46; 198 CLR 111
Balthazaar v The Queen [2012] ACTCA 26

Barbaro v The Queen; Zirilli v The Queen [2014] HCA 2; 253 CLR 58
Cicero Olivares v R [2016] NSWCCA 270
CX v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 37
Dinsdale v The Queen [2000] HCA 54; 202 CLR 321
Hall v The Queen; Barker v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 16
Hili v The Queen [2010] HCA 45; 242 CLR 520
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
JT v R [2012] NSWCCA 133
Lowndes v The Queen [1999] HCA 19;195 CLR 665
Markarian v The Queen [2005] HCA 25; 228 CLR 357
O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47
R v Ellis (1993) 58 A Crim R 449
R v Evans [2017] ACTSC 218
R v Fischetti [No 5] [2016] ACTSC 213
R v Forrest (No 2) [2017] ACTSC 83
R v Griffiths [2015] ACTSC 341
R v Lattouf (Unreported, NSW Court of Criminal Appeal, Mahoney ACJ, Sully J and Adams AJ, 12 December 1996)
R v McGowan [2015] ACTSC 320
R v Mooney [2017] ACTSC 358
R v Morris [2017] ACTSC 400
R v Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450
R v NQ [2017] ACTSC 317
R v Ok [2016] ACTSC 132
R v Pantano (1990) 49 A Crim R 328
R v Pont  [2000] NSWCCA 419
R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24
R v Riordan [2015] ACTSC 26
R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103
R v TW [2011] ACTCA 25; 6 ACTLR 18
R v Visconti (1982) 2 NSWLR 104
R v West [2015] ACTSC 134
R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34
R v Woodman [2001] NSWCCA 310
Samani v The Queen [2017] ACTCA 23
SW v R [2013] NSWCCA 103
The Queen v Allred [2015] ACTSC 327
Truong v R; R v Le; Nguyen v R; R v Nguyen [2013] NSWCCA 36
Wong v The Queen [2001] HCA 64; 207 CLR 584

Zdravkovic v The Queen [2016] ACTCA 53

Parties:

Trisha Lee Mooney (Appellant)

The Queen (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms E McLaughlin (Appellant)

Mr J White SC (Respondent)

Solicitors

Legal Aid ACT (Appellant)

ACT Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 60 of 2017

Decision under appeal: 

Court:…

Continue reading Mooney v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Mooney v The Queen [2018] ACTCA 24
Case
[2018] ACTCA 24
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mooney appealed against his convictions for obtaining property by deception, obtaining a financial advantage by deception, and using a false document. The appeal was heard by the Court of Appeal of Victoria.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive, both individually and in totality, and whether the sentencing judge had erred in their application of comparable cases to establish a sentencing pattern. The Court was required to consider the principles governing the accumulation of sentences and the concurrency of sentences in determining the appropriateness of the overall non-parole period.

The Court of Appeal considered the nature and gravity of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the impact of the offending on the victims. It applied established sentencing principles, including the need for punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation. The Court reviewed the comparable cases relied upon by the sentencing judge and found that they were appropriately applied to inform the sentencing range. The Court concluded that the totality of the sentences imposed was not demonstrably excessive, nor were the individual sentences.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

The appeal is dismissed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.