R v Arrowsmith - [1999] QCA 384

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1999] QCA 384
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CA No 187 of 1999
Brisbane
[R v Arrowsmith]
THE QUEEN
v
EVLYN DAVID ARROWSMITH
(Applicant)
Davies JA Ambrose J Cullinane J

Judgment delivered 14 September 1999
Judgment of the Court
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.

Applicant convicted of offences against Financial Transactions Report Act 1988 (Cth) and Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) - whether sentence excessive because he would have been entitled to receive some monetary benefits - whether state of health justified punishment other than imprisonment.
Counsel: The applicant appeared on his own behalf (via telephone link)
Mr G C Davey for the respondent

Solicitors:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf (via telephone link) Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing date: 8 September 1999

THE COURT: The applicant in this matter filed a notice of appeal against conviction and an application for leave to appeal against sentence. The appeal against conviction was abandoned when the appeal was called on at the sittings in the Court of Appeal at Townsville on 26 July 1999.
The applicant pleaded guilty to six offences. Counts 1 and 2 are offences against the Financial Transactions Reports Act 1988 (Cth) of operating bank accounts in false names.
The remaining offences are offences against the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
Count 3 is constituted by the applicant's receipt of moneys from the Commonwealth in the form of a disability support pension which included a component of rental assistance which had been paid to the applicant's wife. The moneys were paid into an account jointly held by the applicant and his wife, who died on 9 September 1996. Payment of the moneys continued however, and the applicant withdrew the moneys from the joint account on a regular basis.
Counts 4, 5 and 6 relate to false claims made by the applicant for various forms of Social Security payments from the Commonwealth.
In the case of count 4, the applicant falsely represented that he and his wife paid rent for accommodation when in fact they were the owners of a property in which they resided. 7 So far as the fifth count is concerned three misrepresentations were made on the occasion that this offence was committed. Firstly, the applicant falsely stated that he was unemployed. Secondly, he falsely stated that he was not self-employed and thirdly, he falsely stated that he did not own his own home but was paying $150 per week rent.
The final count of imposition involved a misrepresentation that he did not have any assets other than those already disclosed to the Department of Social Security when in fact at the time he owned a house with his wife.
The matter was adjourned by the Court of Appeal at Townsville to Brisbane after the appeal against conviction was struck out. This was done to…

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 Arrowsmith

Details

AGLC: R v Arrowsmith [1999] QCA 384
Case: [1999] QCA 384
Decision Date: 14/09/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Arrowsmith involved the defendant, Arrowsmith, and the Crown. Arrowsmith was charged with criminal offences and the case proceeded to the court for judgment and sentencing. The dispute centred around the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Arrowsmith, taking into account various factors relevant to the case. The court was required to balance these factors to determine an appropriate punishment.

The legal issues before the court included the determination of the appropriate weight to be given to mitigating and aggravating factors in sentencing. The court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's background, the harm caused by the offence, and other relevant considerations. The court was tasked with applying the principles of sentencing to arrive at a just and proportionate sentence.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the severity of the offence, the defendant's criminal history, and the impact of the crime on the victims. The court also took into account any mitigating factors presented, such as the defendant's remorse or any personal circumstances that might warrant a lesser sentence. After weighing all the relevant factors, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for Arrowsmith was [specific sentence]. The reasoning was grounded in the principles of justice and proportionality, ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence while also considering the individual circumstances of the defendant.

Orders