R v Farlow - [2001] NSWCCA 348

CITATION: R v Farlow [2001] NSWCCA 348

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60711/00

HEARING DATE(S): 10/9/01

JUDGMENT DATE:
10 September 2001

PARTIES :

Regina
Lyndsay Frances Farlow

JUDGMENT OF: Sully J at 38; Carruthers AJ at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 00/61/0066

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL
OFFICER : Shillington DCJ

COUNSEL : M C Grogan (Crown)
P R Boulten (App)

SOLICITORS: S E O'Connor
D J Humphreys

CATCHWORDS: Sentence -dishonestly obtain money by deception - appeal against severity - consideration of subjective circumstances when offender elects not to give evidence - consideration of early guilty plea by trial judge.

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act 1900

CASES CITED:
R v Thomson and Houlton (2000) 49 NSWLR 383
R v Tripodina (2001) NSWCCA 136

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

- 14 -IN THE COURT OF

CRIMINAL APPEAL

60711/00

SULLY J
CARRUTHERS AJ

Monday 10 September 2001

Regina v Lyndsay F Farlow

JUDGMENT

1 CARRUTHERS AJ: Lyndsay Frances Farlow seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon her at the District Court by his Honour Judge Shillington QC on 13 October 2000. The applicant had pleaded guilty at the Bathurst Local Court on 29 May 2000 to 12 counts of dishonestly obtain money by deception pursuant to s 178BA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 which offence carries a maximum penalty of imprisonment for five years.

2 His Honour was also asked to take into account 13 other counts under s 178BA(1) on a Form 1. The date of the offences in the indictment range from 13 September 1990 to 25 November 1998.

3 His Honour sentenced the applicant to imprisonment for a term of four years to be served concurrently in relation to each of the 12 counts in the indictment to commence on 13 October 2000 and to expire on 12 October 2004. His Honour fixed a non-parole period in each case of two years and six months to expire on 12 April 2003 having, as is obvious, concluded that there were special circumstances. His Honour specifically stated that he took into account on the first charge each of the 33 charges on the Form 1.

4 The applicant was born on 18 April 1962, and commenced employment with the Charles Sturt University in October 1989. The first offence was accordingly committed less than 12 months after the commencement of her employment, and the offences continued for a period of nine years, the last matter in the Form 1 occurring in November 1999.

5 The seriousness of the objective criminal conduct on the applicant's part is evident from the agreed statement of facts tendered before his Honour: -

“The offender commenced employment on the 3rd of October, 1988, at the Charles Sturt University, Bathurst campus, as a clerical assistant, with the ‘Building and Grounds’ Department of the campus. Her duties were to monitor the payments and expenditure of the section and report to her Manager, she alone controlled these payments.

In October, 1999, the audit section…

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 Farlow

Details

AGLC: R v Farlow [2001] NSWCCA 348
Case: [2001] NSWCCA 348
Decision Date: 10 September 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Farlow involved the defendant, Farlow, who was convicted of dishonestly obtaining money by deception. Farlow appealed against the severity of the sentence imposed by the lower court. The appeal was heard in a higher court, where the appellant argued that the original sentence was too harsh and did not adequately take into account his personal circumstances. The appellant elected not to give evidence during the trial, and this decision was considered by the court in assessing the appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the original sentence was appropriate in light of the appellant's personal circumstances and the fact that he chose not to testify. The court also needed to consider the effect of the appellant's early guilty plea on the sentencing process. The court had to balance the appellant's right to a fair sentencing process with the need to ensure that sentences reflect the gravity of the offence.

The court acknowledged that the appellant's decision not to give evidence was a factor that needed to be taken into account when considering the sentence. However, the court held that the sentence imposed by the lower court was not excessive, given the nature and circumstances of the offence. The court also noted that the appellant had received credit for his early guilty plea, which had resulted in a reduction of the sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court emphasised that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and was appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders