R v Griffiths - [2015] ACTSC 341

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Griffiths
Citation:	[2015] ACTSC 341
Hearing Date(s):	16 July, 27 August, 15 October 2015
DecisionDate:	19 October 2015
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [25]-[26]
Category:	Sentence
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – particular offences – dishonesty offences – obtain property by deception.
Legislation Cited:	Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003 (ACT) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 326
Cases Cited:	R v Lopez [1999] NSWCCA 245 R v Tucker (unreported, Supreme Court of the ACT, Refshauge J, 30 August 2010)
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Raeleen Annette Griffiths (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Mr D Sahu Khan (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Legal Aid ACT (Offender)
File Number(s):	SCC 75 of 2015

BURNS J:

Raeleen Griffiths, on 10 April this year in the Magistrates Court, you entered pleas of guilty to two offences contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT).

The first offence was committed between 15 September 2011 and 4 December 2012. You did, by deception, dishonestly obtain property to the value of $75,320.24 belonging to Euphoria Nominee Pty Ltd, with the intention of permanently depriving that business of the property.

The second offence was committed between 19 February 2013 and 7 July 2014. You did, by deception, dishonestly obtain property to the value of $65,160.00 belonging to Canopy the Tree Experts Pty Ltd, with the intention of permanently depriving that business of the property.

On that day, you were committed for sentence to this Court. In this Court, you have maintained your pleas of guilty to these charges. The maximum penalty for each of these charges is 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $150,000.00 or both.

An Agreed Statement of Facts was tendered at the sentence hearing, but I do not propose reciting those facts at this time. It is sufficient to state that you were an employee of the businesses referred to in the charges during the periods covered by the charges and that you dishonestly manipulated their accounting systems by having amounts payable to the respective companies paid into your own personal account for your personal benefit. Your actions had a significant effect on the viability of at least one of the businesses involved, being Canopy the Tree Experts Pty Ltd.

Consideration

I note that you have a minimal criminal history with the only relevant entry being an offence of shoplifting in 2005 in New South Wales, for which you were placed on a bond for a period of six months. For present purposes, I accept that you are entitled to a degree of leniency with respect to sentencing for these offences based upon your history. However, the extent to which good prior character mitigates offences of this nature is limited by the fact that, if it was not for your good character, you would not have been placed in a position that allowed you to commit these offences.

A Pre Sentence Report was prepared for the sentence…

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 Griffiths

Details

AGLC: R v Griffiths [2015] ACTSC 341
Case: [2015] ACTSC 341
Decision Date: 19 October 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Griffiths, the defendant was convicted of obtaining property by deception. The matter was heard and determined in the relevant Australian court, which examined the appropriate sentence for the offence committed. The defendant had engaged in fraudulent activities, misleading a victim into transferring funds, which constituted the basis of the charge. The court was tasked with assessing the seriousness of the offence and determining an appropriate penalty that would serve the dual purposes of punishment and deterrence.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the defendant's dishonesty offence. The court needed to consider various factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's culpability, any mitigating or aggravating factors, and the general principles of sentencing. The court also had to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration of the defendant into society. The seriousness of the offence, given the intentional and deceitful nature of the defendant's actions, was a central consideration in the sentencing process.

The court thoroughly examined the evidence and arguments presented, taking into account the impact of the deception on the victim and the broader community. It evaluated the defendant's background, criminal history, and any expressions of remorse. Ultimately, the court determined that the offence warranted a custodial sentence, with specific considerations given to the need for deterrence and denunciation. The sentence imposed reflected the gravity of the dishonesty offence and aimed to uphold the integrity of the legal system. The final orders, outlined in paragraphs [25] to [26], detail the specific sentence and any additional conditions imposed on the defendant.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [25]-[26]

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.