R v Causer - [2010] VSC 341

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
No. 50 of 2010

THE QUEEN

v

SONYA DENISE CAUSER

---

JUDGE:

J FORREST J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

2 August 2010 (Plea), 16 August 2010 (further plea)

DATE OF SENTENCE:

19 August 2010

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

R v Causer

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2010] VSC 341

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Fraud – Sections 6H and 6I Sentencing Act 1991 – Section 74 Crimes Act 1958 – Multiple counts of theft – Continuing criminal enterprise counts – Sentencing considerations – Plea of guilty – Approximately $19 million misappropriated and $16 million recovered – Mitigating factors – No exceptional circumstances.
---

APPEARANCES:
Counsel Solicitors

For the Crown Mr P Kidd Office of Public Prosecutions

For the Accused Mr C Heliotis QC
Mr M Dempsey Tony Hargraves and Partners
HIS HONOUR:
1 Sonya Denise Causer, you have pleaded guilty to 24 counts of theft, contrary to s 74 of the Crimes Act.

2 You have admitted that you misappropriated $19,365,768 from your employer Clive Peeters Ltd, of which $16,326,662 has been recovered.

3 Your offending commenced in July 2007 and ceased in July 2009, when your activities were detected by a routine audit. Each count in the indictment relates to a particular month in which you misappropriated your employer’s funds.

4 The maximum penalty for each of these offences is 10 years’ imprisonment, however as each of the counts falls within the provisions of Part 2B of the Sentencing Act, you are to be regarded as a continuing criminal enterprise offender. You are therefore liable for a term of imprisonment of double the sentencing maximum of each of the counts – 20 years on each count.[1]
[1]Sections 6H and 6I Sentencing Act

The background of the prisoner

5 You were born on 7 January 1971 and are now 39 years of age. You had a happy childhood and completed HSC at Vermont High School. You met your first husband when you were 17 years of age and from that union have a daughter, Samantha, who is now 12½ years old.

6 You separated from your first husband when you were approximately 30 years of age. Subsequently, you met your present husband, Michael, whom you married in 2004.

7 You and Michael have two children, Deakin, who is 5 years of age and Kirralee, who is 4 years old. Deakin has been diagnosed with autism, with many behavioural and intellectual handicaps; Kirralee has also been diagnosed as autistic. She suffers from significant behavioural and intellectual disabilities. Both attend Mt Evelyn Special Development School.

8 Since an early age, each of the children have required intensive care, supervision and medical intervention. Your husband Michael ceased his own occupation and has been the primary carer for the two children whilst you have worked, on weekends you have looked after the children. Sadly, but not uncommonly, the strains of looking after the children with their challenging behaviour,…

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 Causer

Details

AGLC: R v Causer [2010] VSC 341
Case: [2010] VSC 341
Decision Date: 19 August 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Causer, the defendant faced sentencing following a guilty plea to multiple counts of fraud and theft. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant's actions, which involved the misappropriation of approximately $19 million, with $16 million subsequently recovered. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction within Australia.

The legal issues before the court included the proper application of sections 6H and 6I of the Sentencing Act 1991, as well as section 74 of the Crimes Act 1958. The court had to consider these statutory provisions alongside the specific circumstances of the case, including the substantial sums involved, the impact on the victims, and the defendant's plea of guilty. The court also had to weigh any mitigating factors presented against the gravity of the offences and determine whether any exceptional circumstances existed that might warrant a departure from the usual sentencing principles.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously evaluated the statutory guidelines and case law relevant to fraud and theft offences. The court considered the significant sums of money involved, the sophistication of the fraud, and the impact on the victims. Despite acknowledging the defendant's guilty plea and the recovery of a substantial portion of the misappropriated funds, the court found no exceptional circumstances to warrant a reduction in the sentence. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a custodial sentence, along with any applicable fines and orders for restitution or compensation to the victims. The court's decision was grounded in the statutory framework and the specific facts of the case, ensuring that the sentence served the purposes of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders