R v Brady - [2005] QCA 135

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Brady; Brindley & Shale [2005] QCA 135

PARTIES:

R
v
BRADY, William Henry
(applicant)

R
v
BRINDLEY, Graeme John
(applicant)

R
v
SHALE, Gary John
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 32 of 2005
CA No 39 of 2005
CA No 80 of 2005
DC No 16 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension (Sentence)
Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

29 April 2005

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

12 April 2005

JUDGES:

McPherson and Jerrard JJA and Helman J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    Application for leave to appeal against sentence in CA No 32 of 2005 dismissed

2.    Application for leave to appeal against sentence in CA No 39 of 2005 dismissed

3.    Extension of time in CA No 80 of 2005 granted
4.    Application for leave to appeal against sentence in CA       No 80 of 2005 dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – fraudulent scheme for issuing false ‘safety certificates’ for motor vehicles – fraud offences – whether sentences imposed for offences appropriate

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 87(1)(b), s 408C(1)(b)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 471.8

R v Gmeinder [2001] QCA 354; CA No 110 of 2001, 22 August 2001, considered
R v Sadeed [2004] QCA 32; CA No 190 of 2003, 20 February 2004, considered

COUNSEL:

D Shepherd for the applicant Brady
M Green for the applicant Brindley
G P Long for the applicant Shale
M R Byrne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicants
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

McPHERSON JA: The three applicants are William Henry “Steve” Brady, Graeme John Brindley and Gary John Shale. The first two pleaded guilty and were sentenced in the District Court to terms of imprisonment for two counts (counts 1 and 2) of fraud under s 408C(1)(b) of the Code, one with a circumstance of aggravation in that the amount exceeded $5,000; one count of official corruption contrary to s 87(1)(b) of the Code; and one count of dishonestly obtaining delivery of postal articles contrary to the Commonwealth Criminal Code, s 471.8.

The overall sentence imposed on Brady was imprisonment for 4½ years on each count, which for various reasons was suspended for an operational period of five years after serving nine months. In the case of Brindley, the sentence was 3 years suspended after serving six months with an operational period of five years. Shale, who pleaded guilty to count 2 (fraud) and count 4 (fraud with a circumstance of aggravation that the amount exceeded $5,000), was sentenced to imprisonment for 18 months suspended, with an operational period of five years, after serving three months. He was not charged with official corruption (count 5) or with the Commonwealth offence in count 6.

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 Brady

Details

AGLC: R v Brady [2005] QCA 135
Case: [2005] QCA 135
Decision Date: 29 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Brady involved the respondent, who had been convicted of multiple fraud-related offences connected to a scheme for issuing false 'safety certificates' for motor vehicles. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentences imposed on the respondent were appropriate. The appeal was brought before the Court of Appeal, where the respondent sought leave to appeal against the sentences handed down in four separate criminal appeals.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were excessive, taking into account the gravity of the offences and the circumstances surrounding the case. The respondent argued that the cumulative sentences were disproportionately high, given the nature of the offences and the lack of physical harm caused to victims. The court was also required to consider the appropriate weight to be given to the fact that the respondent had pleaded guilty, which resulted in a discount on the sentences.

In dismissing the applications for leave to appeal, the court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of deterrence in cases involving widespread fraud and the need to protect the public from the harmful consequences of such schemes. The court also noted the significant role the respondent played in orchestrating the fraudulent activities and the extensive harm caused to the victims and the community. The court concluded that the sentences were proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and the need to uphold the integrity of the justice system. The court's decision was to dismiss the applications for leave to appeal and grant an extension of time in one of the appeals, while confirming the sentences imposed on the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence in CA No 32 of 2005 dismissed

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence in CA No 39 of 2005 dismissed

3. Extension of time in CA No 80 of 2005 granted

4. Application for leave to appeal against sentence in CA No 80 of 2005 dismissed

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 Brady; Brindley & Shale [2005] QCA 135
PARTIES:	R v BRADY, William Henry (applicant) R v BRINDLEY, Graeme John (applicant) R v SHALE, Gary John (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 32 of 2005 CA No 39 of 2005 CA No 80 of 2005 DC No 16 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension (Sentence) Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	29 April 2005
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	12 April 2005
JUDGES:	McPherson and Jerrard JJA and Helman J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence in CA No 32 of 2005 dismissed 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence in CA No 39 of 2005 dismissed 3. Extension of time in CA No 80 of 2005 granted 4. Application for leave to appeal against sentence in CA No 80 of 2005 dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS – fraudulent scheme for issuing false ‘safety certificates’ for motor vehicles – fraud offences – whether sentences imposed for offences appropriate Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 87(1)(b), s 408C(1)(b) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 471.8 R v Gmeinder [2001] QCA 354; CA No 110 of 2001, 22 August 2001, considered R v Sadeed [2004] QCA 32; CA No 190 of 2003, 20 February 2004, considered
COUNSEL:	D Shepherd for the applicant Brady M Green for the applicant Brindley G P Long for the applicant Shale M R Byrne for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicants Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent