R v Gregory - [2004] QCA 87

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Gregory [2004] QCA 87

PARTIES:

R
v
GREGORY, June Merle

(Applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 370 of 2003
DC No 241 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence application

ORIGINATING
COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

26 March 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 March 2004

JUDGES:

Davies and Jerrard JJA and Philippides J

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

ORDER:

Application dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where applicant sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for fraud - where applicant misappropriated funds from her employer – where applicant is 60 years of age and not likely to re-offend – where applicant entered timely plea of guilty - whether sentence is manifestly excessive

R v Felton CA No 16 of 1989, 6 April 1989, considered
R v Gourley [2003] QCA 307; CA No 153 of 2003, 21 July 2003, considered
R v Griffiths [1994] QCA 455; CA No 146 of 1994, 2 November 2994, considered
R v Jensen; ex parte A-G[1998] QCA 275; CA No 477 of 1997, 11 September 1998, distinguished
R v Pearce CA No 54 of 1999, 27 July 1999, distinguished

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for the applicant

M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

DAVIES JA: I will ask Justice Philippides to give her reasons first.

PHILIPPIDES J: The applicant was convicted on her plea of one charge of fraud, with a circumstance of aggravation and sentenced to six years imprisonment, with a recommendation for post-prison community based release after two years. The applicant seeks leave to appeal against that sentence, on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.

The circumstances of the offence are that the applicant misappropriated $236,565 from her employer over a nine year period. The applicant held the positions of debtor's clerk and group credit control manager. In those capacities, she was required to collect her employer's debts from debtors and bank the moneys collected. The applicant kept moneys she had recovered from debtors and by making false entries in the accounts of dormant creditors, was able to conceal her dishonesty. The employer's suspicions were raised after certain discrepancies became apparent and an audit was conducted. This revealed that cash payments that had been received had not been banked and had been charged to dormant creditors' accounts which resulted in the company's accounts balancing. A full audit was conducted in relation to the nine year period. When confronted with her dishonesty by her employer, the applicant denied any impropriety, declined to take part in a police interview and her employment was terminated. Before the learned sentencing Judge, the Crown submitted that the appropriate head sentence was one of six years imprisonment. On the applicant's behalf, it was conceded before the learned…

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 Gregory

Details

AGLC: R v Gregory [2004] QCA 87
Case: [2004] QCA 87
Decision Date: 26 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gregory involved the applicant, who was convicted of fraud and sentenced to six years imprisonment. The applicant misappropriated funds from her employer and was sentenced by the court. She appealed against the severity of the sentence, claiming it was manifestly excessive. The applicant was 60 years old and had entered a timely plea of guilty. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, considering the nature of the offence and the applicant's age and prospects of rehabilitation.

The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation. The court acknowledged that the applicant had committed a serious offence, but also recognised her age and the fact that she was unlikely to reoffend. The court noted that the applicant had shown remorse and had entered a timely guilty plea, which were factors that could be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence. The court also considered the need to deter others from committing similar offences.

The court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the applicant's appeal. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need to deter others from committing similar crimes. The court also noted that the applicant's age and prospects of rehabilitation were factors that could be taken into account in determining the appropriate sentence, but did not outweigh the need for punishment and deterrence. The court emphasised that each case must be considered on its own merits, and that there was no set formula for determining the appropriate sentence in each case.

The final orders of the court were that the application be dismissed, and that the sentence imposed on the applicant be upheld. The court emphasised the importance of considering the principles of sentencing in each case, and the need to balance the various factors that may be relevant in determining the appropriate sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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.

CITATION:	R v Gregory [2004] QCA 87
PARTIES:	R v GREGORY, June Merle (Applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 370 of 2003 DC No 241 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Ipswich
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	26 March 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 March 2004
JUDGES:	Davies and Jerrard JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – where applicant sentenced to 6 years imprisonment for fraud - where applicant misappropriated funds from her employer – where applicant is 60 years of age and not likely to re-offend – where applicant entered timely plea of guilty - whether sentence is manifestly excessive R v Felton CA No 16 of 1989, 6 April 1989, considered R v Gourley [2003] QCA 307; CA No 153 of 2003, 21 July 2003, considered R v Griffiths [1994] QCA 455; CA No 146 of 1994, 2 November 2994, considered R v Jensen; ex parte A-G[1998] QCA 275; CA No 477 of 1997, 11 September 1998, distinguished R v Pearce CA No 54 of 1999, 27 July 1999, distinguished
COUNSEL:	M J Byrne QC for the applicant M J Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Ryan & Bosscher for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent