R v de Figueiredo

Case [2013] QCA 303

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v de Figueiredo [2013] QCA 303

PARTIES:

R
v
DE FIGUEIREDO, Philip Eric
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 77 of 2013
SC No 525 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

11 October 2013

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 September 2013

JUDGES:

Muir and Gotterson JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    The application for leave to appeal be granted.

2.    The appeal be allowed but only to the extent that it be ordered that the applicant be released after serving two years rather than two years and five months imprisonment.

It is declared under s 21E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) that the non-parole period is being reduced because the applicant has undertaken to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in proceedings relating to an offence, or offences, and that the non-parole period, but for that reduction, would have been two years and six months.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of conspiring to defraud the Commonwealth – where the applicant was sentenced to six years imprisonment for each of counts 1 and 2 and to six months imprisonment for count 3 and was ordered to be released on recognizance after serving two years and five months imprisonment – where the applicant, an accountant acting under the direction of his employer, played an integral role in the establishment and implementation of the schemes – where the applicant was not an architect, promoter or direct beneficiary of the schemes – where there was no actual loss to the Commonwealth – where the applicant had no criminal history – where the applicant entered an ex-officio plea in respect of count 3 and pleaded guilty to counts 1 and 2 despite his co-conspirators being acquitted on one count – where the applicant showed remorse and provided valuable assistance to the Australian Crime Commission – where the applicant submitted that although the head sentence of six years imprisonment was far from “beneficial”, justice could be done if the recognizance release order was reduced to 18 months – whether the applicant’s pleas of guilty and past cooperation were properly reflected in the head sentence or recognizance release order – whether the sentences were manifestly excessive

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 21E

Assafiri v R [2007] NSWCCA 159, cited
Bulger v Queensland Community Corrections Board [1994] 2 Qd R 239; [1993] QCA 493, cited
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Gregory (2011) 34 VR 1; [2011] VSCA 145, cited
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Hamman, unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW, CA Nos 60388 of 1998 and 60457 of 1998, 1 December 1998, cited
Peters v The Queen (1998) 192 CLR…

Continue reading R v de Figueiredo

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v de Figueiredo [2013] QCA 303
Case
[2013] QCA 303
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter under consideration was an appeal by the applicant, de Figueiredo, against his sentence for his involvement in a conspiracy to defraud the Commonwealth. The applicant had pleaded guilty to three counts of conspiracy. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive or inadequate, given the nature of the applicant's involvement and his cooperation with law enforcement agencies. The applicant argued that while the six-year imprisonment term for counts 1 and 2 was severe, it could be justified if his release on recognizance was reduced from two years and five months to 18 months.

The court considered several factors in its decision. These included the applicant's role in the conspiracy, which was integral but not as a primary architect or direct beneficiary. The court also took into account the absence of actual financial loss to the Commonwealth, the applicant's lack of a criminal history, and his display of remorse and cooperation with authorities. The court found that the applicant's pleas of guilty and his past cooperation were not adequately reflected in the original sentence. Consequently, the court accepted that the non-parole period should be reduced to two years, acknowledging the applicant's cooperation with law enforcement in other proceedings.

The court granted the application for leave to appeal and allowed the appeal in part. The order was that the applicant's non-parole period be reduced to two years, reflecting the cooperation he had shown to law enforcement agencies. The court declared under section 21E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) that the reduction in the non-parole period was due to the applicant's cooperation, which would have otherwise resulted in a non-parole period of two years and six months.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal be granted.

2. The appeal be allowed but only to the extent that it be ordered that the applicant be released after serving two years rather than two years and five months imprisonment.

It is declared under s 21E of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) that the non-parole period is being reduced because the applicant has undertaken to cooperate with law enforcement agencies in proceedings relating to an offence, or offences, and that the non-parole period, but for that reduction, would have been two years and six months.

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.