R v Grant-Watson

Case [2004] QCA 77


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Grant-Watson [2004] QCA 77

PARTIES:

R
v
GRANT-WATSON, Sharlene Vida

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 360 of 2003
DC No 1984 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

16 March 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 March 2004

JUDGES:

Davies JA, McPherson JA and Williams JA

Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.  

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – PROPERTY OFFENCES – FRAUD – where applicant aged 37 pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud on employer and school committee with a total value of $27,995.59 – whether sentence manifestly excessive in light of personal circumstances of applicant and her offer to repay

COUNSEL:

P E Nolan for the applicant

M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

MacGillivrays for the applicant

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent 

McPHERSON JA:  The applicant was sentenced on pleas of guilty in the District Court on two indictments, each charging a count of fraud under s 408C of the Code with circumstances of aggravation.  The first charge was that during the year 2000/2001 she had dishonestly applied to her own use more than $5,000 held on account of her employer, Intergroup Shipping.  The second was that between December 1999 and July 2001 she had applied to her own use cheques to the value of more than $5,000 belonging to a Parents and Friends school committee of which she was treasurer.  She was sentenced on each charge to imprisonment for four years to be served concurrently and suspended after 18 months for a period of four and a half years.  She now applies for leave to appeal against this sentence.

The applicant seems to have begun by writing in her favour cheques drawn on a Parents and Friends account on which she was one of two authorised signatories.  She wrote 35 cheques in this way and forged the other signature required.  According to the figures given to the sentencing Judge, from the total of these cheques she misappropriated an amount of $27,995.59.  Of this a total of $19,698.49 was paid to her employer, Intergroup Shipping, from which she took cheques totalling $37,391.20, of which $7,605.56 was paid to the P and F committee.

After being confronted with these defalcations, she repaid $23,500 to the committee and $11,800 to the employer.  This was said at sentencing to have left a balance outstanding of some $19,000.  It may be that these amounts are understated because, on another view of the matter which has been debated before us, it would appear that she had misappropriated a total of $51,781.  However, the Judge sentenced her on the basis I have indicated and any increase in the amount can only militate against her application.

At sentencing she offered to repay the sum of $19,000 and to do so within 18 months.  But, while…

Continue reading R v Grant-Watson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Grant-Watson [2004] QCA 77
Case
[2004] QCA 77
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Grant-Watson involved an applicant who had pleaded guilty to two counts of fraud against her employer and a school committee, with a total value of $27,995.59. The applicant, aged 37, was sentenced to imprisonment, and she appealed against the severity of her sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the relevant court of appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the personal circumstances of the applicant and her offer to repay the stolen funds. The applicant argued that her age, health issues, and her willingness to repay the stolen amount should have been considered more favourably. The court was required to determine if the sentence was unjust or disproportionate in light of these factors.

The court examined the personal circumstances of the applicant, including her age, health, and offer to repay the stolen funds. However, the court found that the seriousness of the offence, the amount of money defrauded, and the impact on the victims outweighed the mitigating factors presented. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The reasoning centred on the gravity of the fraud and the need to maintain public confidence in the justice system.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

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.