R v Blackhall-Cain - [2000] QCA 380

[2000] QCA 380

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
WHITE J
JONES J

CA No 178 of 2000

THE QUEEN

JOHN SCOTT BLACKHALL-CAIN Respondent

and

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 15/09/2000

JUDGMENT

PINCUS JA: This is an Attorney-General's appeal against sentence. The respondent was convicted, on pleas of guilty, of 23 offences of dishonesty, the total amount involved being $51,232.60. The appeal relates to 22 of those offences. The learned primary Judge sentenced the respondent to two years' imprisonment, wholly suspended, for a period of three years. That is, the operative period was three years.

The respondent is 36 years of age. The offences were committed over a six week period in mid-1998. He has no criminal history.

The primary Judge, in his reasons for sentence, said that the respondent pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, having made full admissions from the outset. His Honour said that the dishonesty was not elaborate and did not involve a great deal of planning. He accepted that no-one was out of pocket because of the dishonesty, for reasons which I will mention later. The Judge also said that the respondent's career had been destroyed as a result of his dishonesty; that was a reference to the fact that he will be unable for a period of six years to carry on his former occupation, because of this dishonesty.

Mr Meredith, who has appeared for the Attorney-General today, says that the interruption or destruction of the career is a proper outcome and what one would expect from such dishonesty. He also points out that the respondent was in a position of trust in the employer firm - not only trust by the employer but trust by the community - and that he held a senior position and that these are matters which are relevant in favour of the appeal.

When the offences were committed, the respondent was employed in a position described as "registered securities representative"; that involved buying and selling shares for clients of the employer firm.

Eight of the offences, charged under s.408G of the Code, consisted of simply taking money in various ways. Count 1 involved a firm client who instructed the respondent to sell certain options. He did so and forwarded the resultant sale price to the client, but without deducting, as he should have done, a sum which was due by the client to the employer firm. The client pointed the error out and the respondent told her to send the cheque for the sum due back to him personally. He then forged an endorsement and deposited the cheque in the account of a company of which he and his wife were the only directors. In short, he stole a cheque which was the property of the employer.

Another fraud related to a sale of AMP shares on behalf of a client. In the course of this transaction, a profit of over $5,000 was made, which belonged to the firm; but the respondent stole the money by having…

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 Blackhall-Cain

Details

AGLC: R v Blackhall-Cain [2000] QCA 380
Case: [2000] QCA 380
Decision Date: 15/09/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Blackhall-Cain is an appeal by the Attorney-General against the sentence imposed on the respondent, John Scott Blackhall-Cain, who was convicted on 23 counts of dishonesty, with the total amount involved being $51,232.60. The appeal pertains to 22 of these offences. The primary judge sentenced Blackhall-Cain to two years' imprisonment, wholly suspended, for a period of three years. The respondent, aged 36, committed the offences over a six-week period in mid-1998 and had no prior criminal history. The primary judge took into account several factors, including the respondent's early guilty plea, the lack of significant planning in the offences, and the fact that no one was out of pocket due to the dishonesty. The judge also noted that the respondent's career had been destroyed as a result of his actions.

The appeal raised several legal issues, primarily whether the sentence imposed was too lenient given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The Attorney-General argued that the sentence should be increased, highlighting the respondent's position of trust and the significant amount of money involved. The court had to consider the mitigating factors presented, such as the respondent's psychiatric condition and the anticipation of receiving commissions that would cover the misappropriated funds. The appeal also referenced previous cases where similar or lesser sentences were upheld.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the appeal, found that the primary judge's sentence fell within the range of a proper exercise of judicial discretion. The judges noted the unchallenged evidence of the respondent's significant psychiatric condition prior to the offences and the fact that the employer was ultimately not out of pocket due to the anticipated commissions. They concluded that, despite the severity of the offences, the sentence imposed was appropriate given the mitigating factors and comparable to sentences in similar cases. The appeal was thus dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders