R v Grice - [2006] QCA 326

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Grice [2006] QCA 326

PARTIES:

R
v
GRICE, Barry Joseph
(appellant/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 138 of 2006
DC No 937 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

31 August 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

31 August 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of defrauding the Commonwealth and one count of obtaining a financial advantage by deception – where applicant was sentenced to three years on each count to be released after eight months upon his giving security by recognisance in the sum of $10,000 – where applicant was ordered to make reparation of $62,420.38 to the Commonwealth – where applicant made dishonest statements to Centrelink during a continuous period of 8 years – where applicant was 69 years of age at the time of offending – where applicant had made efforts to repay some of the monies –– whether actual custody is required for general deterrence.

Crimes Act1914 (Cth) s 16A

R v Holdsworth [1993] QCA 242; CA No 94 of 1993, 22 June 1993, applied.

R v Hurst; ex parte Commonwealth DPP [2005] QCA 25; CA No 387 of 2004, 14 February 2005, applied

R v Wright (1994) 74 ACrimR 152, cited

R v Carter [2005] QCA 402; CA No 257 of 2005,
3 November 2005, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
G R Rice for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: Justice Atkinson will deliver her reasons first.

ATKINSON J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence by Barry Grice.

The applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty on one count of defrauding the Commonwealth and one count of obtaining a financial advantage by deception. The ground of appeal was that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

In relation to each count the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for three years to be released after serving eight months upon his giving security by recognisance in the sum of $10,000, conditioned that he be of good behaviour for three years. Each sentence of imprisonment was to be served concurrently with the other. He was ordered to make reparation in the sum of $62,420.38 to the Commonwealth.

Mr Grice appeared for himself on the hearing of this application.

Count 1, defrauding the Commonwealth, related to a period between 17 August 1996 and 23 May 2001; the second count on the indictment…

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 Grice

Details

AGLC: R v Grice [2006] QCA 326
Case: [2006] QCA 326
Decision Date: 31 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant appealed against his sentence in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant had pleaded guilty to defrauding the Commonwealth and obtaining a financial advantage by deception. He was sentenced to three years on each count, to be released after eight months upon giving security by recognisance in the sum of $10,000. He was also ordered to make reparation of $62,420.38 to the Commonwealth. The appellant made dishonest statements to Centrelink over a period of eight years and was 69 years of age at the time of the offending. He had made efforts to repay some of the monies.
The court was required to decide whether actual custody was required for general deterrence. The court noted that the appellant's offending was over a long period and involved a significant amount of money. The court also noted that the appellant had made efforts to repay some of the monies. However, the court found that the appellant's offending was serious and warranted a sentence of actual custody. The court noted that the sentence was not excessive and was appropriate to the circumstances of the case.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appellant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and that actual custody was required for general deterrence. The court noted that the appellant's offending was serious and involved a significant amount of money over a long period. The court found that the sentence was not excessive and was appropriate to the circumstances of the case. The court also noted that the appellant had made efforts to repay some of the monies, but this did not outweigh the seriousness of the offending.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Grice [2006] QCA 326
PARTIES:	R v GRICE, Barry Joseph (appellant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 138 of 2006 DC No 937 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	31 August 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	31 August 2006
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made.
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of defrauding the Commonwealth and one count of obtaining a financial advantage by deception – where applicant was sentenced to three years on each count to be released after eight months upon his giving security by recognisance in the sum of $10,000 – where applicant was ordered to make reparation of $62,420.38 to the Commonwealth – where applicant made dishonest statements to Centrelink during a continuous period of 8 years – where applicant was 69 years of age at the time of offending – where applicant had made efforts to repay some of the monies –– whether actual custody is required for general deterrence. Crimes Act1914 (Cth) s 16A R v Holdsworth [1993] QCA 242; CA No 94 of 1993, 22 June 1993, applied. R v Hurst; ex parte Commonwealth DPP [2005] QCA 25; CA No 387 of 2004, 14 February 2005, applied R v Wright (1994) 74 ACrimR 152, cited R v Carter [2005] QCA 402; CA No 257 of 2005, 3 November 2005, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf G R Rice for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent