R v Anderson - [2000] QCA 257

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v Anderson [2000] QCA 257

PARTIES: R
v
ANDERSON, Lewis Wilson
(applicant)

FILE NO/S: CA No 52 of 2000
DC Nos 270 of 2000 and 271 of 2000

DIVISION: Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING: Sentence application

ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON: 30 June 2000

DELIVERED AT: Brisbane

HEARING DATE: 15 June 2000

JUDGES: Pincus JA, White and Dutney JJ
Judgment of the Court

ORDER: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCE – PLEA OF GUILTY AND USE OF DEPOSITIONS

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – applicant committed offences of dishonesty in order to keep alive businesses in financial difficulty – creditors deprived of about $1.5M – plea of guilty – whether sentence of six years imprisonment with parole recommendation after two years manifestly excessive

COUNSEL: M C Chowdhury for the applicant
N Weston for the respondent

SOLICITORS: Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The applicant, over a period of years, defrauded creditors, by disposing of property which constituted security for debts of the applicant's businesses and by other means. Typical of the pattern of behaviour are counts 4 and 7 of the main indictment.

Under count 4 it was alleged that the applicant entered into a lease of a tractor with a finance company and a few years later sold the tractor without the consent of its owner, the finance company. Under count 7 it was alleged that the applicant purported to sell a vehicle to a finance company, when no such vehicle existed. By such methods the applicant diminished the extent of the property which was or should have been, in effect, security for debts due by him. In two instances (counts 21 and 22), the applicant falsified documents which were presented to creditors and this was done to give a misleading impression of his financial position.

Under a separate indictment, the applicant was charged with disposing and mortgaging goods without consent, over a period of five years. There was a stock mortgage over cattle and by fraudulent means the applicant had reduced the size of the herd very greatly, purporting to transfer stock subject to the mortgage to his son; the amount involved was about $0.5M, being the value of the relevant stock.

There were 12 counts of misappropriation with a circumstance of aggravation and seven counts of other offences of dishonesty, under the first indictment; there was also a count of disposition of mortgaged goods without consent, relating to the stock mortgage just discussed. The applicant, aged 47, was sentenced to various terms, the longest being six years imprisonment. There was a recommendation…

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 R v Anderson

Details

AGLC: R v Anderson [2000] QCA 257
Case: [2000] QCA 257
Decision Date: 30 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Anderson involved the applicant who was convicted of multiple offences of dishonesty. The applicant had committed these offences to keep their businesses afloat, which were experiencing financial difficulties. The crimes resulted in creditors being deprived of approximately $1.5 million. The applicant entered a plea of guilty, and the court was required to consider various factors in determining an appropriate sentence. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence of six years imprisonment, with a recommendation for parole after two years, was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case.

In addressing the legal issues, the court considered the nature of the offences, the plea of guilty, and the impact on the victims. The court noted that the applicant's actions were driven by a desire to save their businesses, but this did not mitigate the significant harm caused to the creditors. The court also took into account the applicant's early guilty plea, which could warrant a more lenient sentence. Despite these considerations, the court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, as it reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence.

The court's reasoning was based on a careful assessment of the aggravating and mitigating factors in the case. The court emphasised that while the applicant's motivation was to save their businesses, the consequences of their actions were severe. The court found that the sentence, including the recommendation for parole after two years, was appropriate and not manifestly excessive. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 Anderson [2000] QCA 257
PARTIES:	R v ANDERSON, Lewis Wilson (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 52 of 2000 DC Nos 270 of 2000 and 271 of 2000
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 June 2000
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 June 2000
JUDGES:	Pincus JA, White and Dutney JJ Judgment of the Court
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCE – PLEA OF GUILTY AND USE OF DEPOSITIONS CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE – applicant committed offences of dishonesty in order to keep alive businesses in financial difficulty – creditors deprived of about $1.5M – plea of guilty – whether sentence of six years imprisonment with parole recommendation after two years manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:	M C Chowdhury for the applicant N Weston for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent