R v Fares

Case [2012] QCA 13

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Fares [2012] QCA 13

PARTIES:

R
v
FARES, Sandra Louise
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 233 of 2011
DC No 91 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal against Conviction & Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

17 February 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2012

JUDGES:

Chief Justice, Muir JA and Margaret Wilson AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.  Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2.  Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –  APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION RECORDED ON GUILTY PLEA – where the applicant was convicted after a plea of guilty of multiple counts of dishonesty offences, mainly fraud – where the applicant sought to withdraw plea at sentence – where the applicant submitted that there was a miscarriage of justice in that her plea of guilty deprived her of the opportunity to proceed to trial and argue defences available to her – whether there has been a miscarriage of justice

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where sentenced to six years imprisonment (head sentence) – where the value of fraud obtained was greater than $150,000 – where lengthy criminal history with respect to offences of dishonesty – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

Corrective Services Act 2006 (Qld), s 180
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 16, s 408C, s 668E(1)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13A, s 189

Meissner v The Queen (1995) 184 CLR 132; [1995] HCA 41, cited
Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70, cited
Postiglione v The Queen (1997) 189 CLR 295; [1997] HCA 26, cited
R v Alexander[2004] QCA 11, cited
R v Norris[2006] QCA 376, cited
R v Power[1998] QCA 32, cited
R v Wade[2011] QCA 289, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant/appellant appeared on her own behalf
B Merrin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant/appellant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. CHIEF JUSTICE: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Margaret Wilson AJA.  I agree with the orders proposed by Her Honour, and with her reasons.

  1. MUIR JA: I agree with the orders proposed by Wilson AJA for the reasons given by her Honour.  The sentences were not excessive.  The gravity of the appellant’s offending conduct must be measured not only by the moneys fraudulently dealt with, but by the trail of human suffering left in such conduct’s wake.

  1. MARGARET WILSON AJA:   The appellant pleaded guilty to 22 offences –

1 x fraud in excess of $30,000
1 x fraud in excess of $5,000
16 x fraud
2 x stealing

2…

Continue reading R v Fares

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Fares [2012] QCA 13
Case
[2012] QCA 13
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Fares involved the applicant who was convicted on multiple counts of dishonesty offences, primarily fraud, after entering a plea of guilty. The applicant subsequently sought to withdraw her plea at the sentencing stage, arguing that there was a miscarriage of justice because her guilty plea had prevented her from proceeding to trial and arguing available defences. The applicant further argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the court, which had to consider whether the applicant's plea withdrawal and sentencing arguments were valid.

The court addressed several legal issues, including whether the applicant's plea withdrawal was justified on the grounds of a miscarriage of justice and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court examined the circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences, and the applicant's criminal history to determine whether the sentence was proportionate to the crime and whether the plea withdrawal request was valid. The court also considered the impact of the applicant's guilty plea on the proceedings and the potential for a fair trial if the plea had been withdrawn.

The court dismissed the appeal against the conviction, finding that there was no miscarriage of justice in the applicant's plea of guilty and that the plea withdrawal request was not valid. The court also refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence, determining that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences and the applicant's criminal history, but concluded that the sentence was appropriate in the circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of finality in criminal proceedings and the need to avoid unnecessary appeals that could waste judicial resources.

The orders of the court were that the appeal against the conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The applicant's conviction and sentence remained in place, and no further appeal was permitted. The court's decision underscored the importance of carefully considering the implications of a guilty plea and the limited circumstances in which a plea withdrawal may be justified.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal against conviction dismissed.

2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

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.