Legal Research
Cases
Quetcher v The Queen

Quetcher v The Queen

Case [2010] NSWCCA 257 11 November 2010

Sentencing

Commonwealth offences

Mens Rea & Intention

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

New South Wales
Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION: Quetcher v R [2010] NSWCCA 257
This decision has been amended. Please see the end of the judgment for a list of the amendments.

HEARING DATE(S): 24 September 2010

JUDGMENT DATE:
11 November 2010

JUDGMENT OF: McClellan CJatCL at 1; Latham J at 2; Price J at 3

DECISION: (i) Leave to appeal granted. (ii) Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: Criminal Law - sentencing - Commonwealth offences - whether Judge erred in taking into account applicant's record of interview when considering s 16A(2)(h) Crimes Act 1914 - whether error in assessment of likelihood of re-offending - whether sentences manifestly excessive.

LEGISLATION CITED: Criminal Code Act (Cth) 1995 s 134.1, s 134.1(1),
s 134.2, s 134.2(1)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16A(1), s 16A(2),
s 16A(2)(h)

CATEGORY: Principal judgment

CASES CITED: Ali v R [2010] NSWCCA 35
Alseedi v R [2009] NSWCCA 185
Gok v R [2010] WASCA 185
Ly v R [2007] NSWCCA 28
Markarian v R (2005) 228 CLR 357
Pearce v R (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430
R v Knight [2004] NSWCCA 145
R v MAK; R v MSK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270
R v O'Keefe (1992) 60 A Crim R 201
R v Pont [2000] NSWCCA 419
R v Pipes [2004] NSWCCA 351
Sanchet v Director Public Prosecutions (Cth) [2006] NSWCCA 291

PARTIES: Regina
Marita Quetcher

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 2009/1463

COUNSEL: Mr I Nash (Applicant)
Mr P McGuire (Crown/Respondent)

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Commission of NSW (Applicant)
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER: Solomon DCJ

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION: 18 December 2009

2009/1463

McCLELLAN CJ at CL
LATHAM J
PRICE J
11 November 2010

QUETCHER v R

Judgment

1 McCLELLAN CJ at CL: I agree with Price J.

2 LATHAM J: I agree with Price J.

3 PRICE J: The applicant was arraigned on 27 July 2009 in the District Court at Sydney on an indictment containing sixty-five counts of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage by deception, being a general deficiency in money, belonging to Medicare Australia, a Commonwealth entity, with the intention of permanently depriving Medicare Australia of that money, contrary to s 134.1(1) of the Criminal Code Act (Cth) 1995. Pleas of not guilty were entered to each count.

4 After an eleven-day trial before a jury of twelve, the applicant was found guilty on each count. She was sentenced by Solomon DCJ on 18 December 2009 as follows:

Counts 1-22 inclusive: 3 years imprisonment commencing on 10 August 2009 and expiring on 9 August 2012;

Counts 23-44 inclusive: 3 years imprisonment commencing on 10 August 2011 and expiring on 9 August 2014;

Counts 45-65 inclusive: 3 years imprisonment commencing on 10 August 2014 and expiring on 9 August 2017.

5 A single non-parole period of 5 years was set by the Judge commencing on 10 August 2009 and expiring on 9…

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 Quetcher v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Quetcher v The Queen [2010] NSWCCA 257
Case: [2010] NSWCCA 257
Decision Date: 11 November 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quetcher appealed against his conviction and sentence for drug offences. The appeal was against both the sentence and the conviction, but the court focused on the sentence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The key issues were whether the trial judge erred in considering the applicant's record of interview when assessing the likelihood of re-offending and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court held that the trial judge did not err in taking into account the record of interview when assessing the likelihood of re-offending. The court found that the trial judge was entitled to have regard to the applicant's record of interview when considering the likelihood of re-offending. The court held that the trial judge's assessment of the likelihood of re-offending was not unreasonable, and the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the trial judge had properly considered the principles of sentencing and had not erred in imposing the sentence.

The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had properly considered the principles of sentencing. The court held that the trial judge was entitled to have regard to the record of interview when assessing the likelihood of re-offending, and that the trial judge's assessment was not unreasonable. The sentence was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders