R v Gould - [2019] NSWDC 313

District Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: R v Gould [2019] NSWDC 313
Hearing dates: 31 January 2019
Date of orders: 31 January 2019
Decision date: 31 January 2019
Jurisdiction: Criminal
Before: Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:
At [140]

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW – two counts of dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception – vulnerable victims – no remorse – no special circumstances
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited: Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144
Ingham v R [2011] NSWCCA 88
Johnston v R [2017] NSWCCA 53
The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550
Texts Cited: None
Category: Sentence
Parties: Regina (Crown)
Aruna Gould (Offender)
Representation:
Counsel:
Ms E Nicholson (Crown)
Mr M Coroneos (Offender)
Solicitors:
ODPP (Crown)
Murphy’s Lawyers (Offender)

File Number(s): 2014/364850; 2015/261537
Publication restriction: None

Introduction

The Offender appears before the Court today for sentencing after pleading guilty to two charges on the Crown Sentence Summary (Exhibit A. I should note, first, that I have taken this matter on in the course of the trial by reason of having a break in the trial but I am concerned to provide reasons and remarks on sentence for the benefit of the parties today.
The Crown Sentence Summary sets out two counts:

the first count is dishonestly obtaining financial advantage by deception in breach of s192E(1)(b) of the Crimes Act. I pause there to note the first count relates to a complainant or victim by the name of Robert Sullivan and the amount involved was $18,500;

the second count which comes under the same section, that is dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception related to a complainant or victim by the name of Henry Wall, now deceased, and the amount of the financial advantage obtained by the Offender was $33,400.

The amount in total was $51,900 which is relatively not a huge amount of money for offences of this type, however, I accept that for retired persons such as those, the victims of this crime, they were substantial sums of money.
In relation to the victims, I note that Mr Sullivan was born on 21 January 1942 and is now 77 years of age. I note that the other victim of this Offender’s conduct was born on 28 December 1921 and is now deceased. He would be 97 and was in the order of 93 or thereabouts at the time of the subject offending. The Offender herself was born on 5 March 1970 and soon will be 49 years of age.
In sentencing, the Court, of course, has regard to what is often referred to as the guideposts being the maximum penalties and any standard non-parole periods which may apply to the subject offences, the maximum penalty represents the parliament’s assessment of the seriousness of the offending. In my view, the seriousness of this Offender’s conduct is extremely serious and the sentence should reflect that in order to ensure adequate punishment. There is no standard non-parole period. In relation to the two…

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 Gould

Details

AGLC: R v Gould [2019] NSWDC 313
Case: [2019] NSWDC 313
Decision Date: 31 January 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gould involved the defendant being charged with two counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The victims were deemed vulnerable, and the defendant displayed a lack of remorse. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The prosecution argued that the defendant had engaged in deceitful practices targeting vulnerable individuals, resulting in financial loss. The defence did not dispute the facts but contended that there were no special circumstances that warranted any leniency.

The central legal issue was whether the defendant's actions constituted obtaining a financial advantage by deception under the relevant provisions of the Criminal Code. The court needed to assess the evidence presented to determine if the deception was intentional and if the victims were indeed vulnerable. Additionally, the court examined the defendant's attitude and whether there were any special circumstances that could mitigate the sentencing.

The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt on both counts. The judge emphasised the gravity of targeting vulnerable individuals and the defendant's lack of remorse. While recognising that there were no special circumstances, the judge found that the deception was deliberate and the harm caused significant. The court then proceeded to impose a sentence that reflected the seriousness of the offences, taking into account the defendant's culpability and the need for deterrence and retribution.

The final orders included the defendant being found guilty on both counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the severity of the crimes, ensuring that it served as a deterrent to others who might consider similar actions. The judgment provided a detailed analysis of the legal principles applied and the evidence considered, offering clarity on the court's reasoning and the basis for the sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

At [140]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	R v Gould [2019] NSWDC 313
Hearing dates:	31 January 2019
Date of orders:	31 January 2019
Decision date:	31 January 2019
Jurisdiction:	Criminal
Before:	Wilson SC DCJ
Decision:	At [140]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – two counts of dishonestly obtain financial advantage by deception – vulnerable victims – no remorse – no special circumstances
Legislation Cited:	Crimes Act 1900 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999
Cases Cited:	Imbornone v R [2017] NSWCCA 144 Ingham v R [2011] NSWCCA 88 Johnston v R [2017] NSWCCA 53 The Queen v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550
Texts Cited:	None
Category:	Sentence
Parties:	Regina (Crown) Aruna Gould (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel: Ms E Nicholson (Crown) Mr M Coroneos (Offender) Solicitors: ODPP (Crown) Murphy’s Lawyers (Offender)
File Number(s):	2014/364850; 2015/261537
Publication restriction:	None