R v Adams; ex parte A-G (Qld) - [2006] QCA 312

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Adams; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 312

PARTIES:

R
v
ADAMS, Anna Rachelle
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 115 of 2006
DC No 244 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 August 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 August 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Appeal against sentence allowed
2. Head sentence of four years with operational period of five years is not altered
3. Sentence varied by order that it be suspended after 15 months imprisonment

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OTHER OFFENCES – where respondent convicted of stealing as a servant and sentenced to four years imprisonment suspended after nine months with an operational period of five years – where respondent was employed as bookkeeper by a company and misappropriated $239,617.29 over a 12 month period – whether too much weight given to respondent’s psychological condition and other factors in mitigation – whether suspension after 9 months manifestly inadequate

R v Alexander [2004] QCA 11; CA No 331 of 2003, 13 February 2004, distinguished
R v Allen [2005] QCA 73; CA No 21 of 2005, 17 March 2005, distinguished
R v Anderson [2000] QCA 257; CA No 52 of 2000, 30 June 2000, distinguished
R v Baunach; Cth Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] QCA 207; CA No 88 of 1999, 4 June 1999, considered
R v Fisher [2002] QCA 259; CA No 148 of 2002, 24 July 2002, considered
R v La Rosa; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 19; CA No 287 of 2005, 10 February 2006, considered
R v Rees [2002] QCA 469; CA No 205 of 2002, 4 November 2002, considered
R v Spalding [2002] QCA 538; CA No 241 of 2002, 6 December 2002, considered
R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398, distinguished

COUNSEL:

M J Copley for the appellant
A M Hoare for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Robertson O’Gorman for the respondent

McMURDO P: I agree with Holmes JA.

HOLMES JA: The respondent was convicted on a plea of guilty of one count of stealing as a servant and was sentenced to four years imprisonment, suspended after nine months, with an operational period of five years. This is an appeal by the Attorney-General against that sentence.

The respondent was employed as a bookkeeper by a company which sold metal products. Her duties included invoicing and the payment of bills. After it was discovered in January 2005 that the respondent had deposited a cheque…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Adams; ex parte A-G (Qld) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2006] QCA 312
Decision Date: 25 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Adams, the respondent was convicted of stealing as a servant, a charge arising from his misappropriation of $239,617.29 from his employer over a 12-month period. The respondent, who was employed as a bookkeeper, was sentenced to four years imprisonment, suspended after nine months, with an operational period of five years. The Attorney-General for Queensland appealed against the sentence, arguing that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether too much weight was given to the respondent's psychological condition and other mitigating factors. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was appropriate in all the circumstances, including the severity of the offence and the respondent's culpability. The Attorney-General contended that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence, given the significant amount of money stolen and the breach of trust involved.

The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and that too much weight had been given to the respondent's psychological condition and other mitigating factors. The court held that the sentence did not adequately reflect the gravity of the offence, which involved a significant breach of trust and the misappropriation of a substantial sum of money. The court varied the sentence by ordering that it be suspended after 15 months imprisonment, while maintaining the head sentence of four years with an operational period of five years. The appeal against the sentence was therefore allowed in part, with the sentence being varied as described.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against sentence allowed

2. Head sentence of four years with operational period of five years is not altered

3. Sentence varied by order that it be suspended after 15 months imprisonment

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.

CITATION:	R v Adams; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 312
PARTIES:	R v ADAMS, Anna Rachelle (respondent) EX PARTE ATTTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 115 of 2006 DC No 244 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 August 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 August 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Holmes JA and Mullins J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Appeal against sentence allowed 2. Head sentence of four years with operational period of five years is not altered 3. Sentence varied by order that it be suspended after 15 months imprisonment
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OTHER OFFENCES – where respondent convicted of stealing as a servant and sentenced to four years imprisonment suspended after nine months with an operational period of five years – where respondent was employed as bookkeeper by a company and misappropriated $239,617.29 over a 12 month period – whether too much weight given to respondent’s psychological condition and other factors in mitigation – whether suspension after 9 months manifestly inadequate R v Alexander [2004] QCA 11; CA No 331 of 2003, 13 February 2004, distinguished R v Allen [2005] QCA 73; CA No 21 of 2005, 17 March 2005, distinguished R v Anderson [2000] QCA 257; CA No 52 of 2000, 30 June 2000, distinguished R v Baunach; Cth Director of Public Prosecutions [1999] QCA 207; CA No 88 of 1999, 4 June 1999, considered R v Fisher [2002] QCA 259; CA No 148 of 2002, 24 July 2002, considered R v La Rosa; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 19; CA No 287 of 2005, 10 February 2006, considered R v Rees [2002] QCA 469; CA No 205 of 2002, 4 November 2002, considered R v Spalding [2002] QCA 538; CA No 241 of 2002, 6 December 2002, considered R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398, distinguished
COUNSEL:	M J Copley for the appellant A M Hoare for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Robertson O’Gorman for the respondent