R v Guillevic - [2011] QCA 273

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Guillevic [2011] QCA 273

PARTIES:

R
v
GUILLEVIC, Karine Sonia
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 22 of 2011
DC No 221 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 October 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 August 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Chesterman JA and North J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted of stealing as a servant – where the amount involved was $41,423.15 – where the applicant was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment, suspended after fifteen months with an operational period of three years – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v Hearnden[2002] QCA 258, cited
R v Jeffree[2010] QCA 47, considered
R v La Rosa; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 19, considered
R v Lawrie [2008] QCA 97, cited
R v Robinson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 169, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
M B Lehane for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: I agree with North J’s reasons for refusing this application for leave to appeal against sentence.

CHESTERMAN JA: I agree with North J that the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons given by his Honour.

NORTH J: On 14 February 2011 after a four day trial the applicant was convicted of stealing from her employer. She was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment suspended after 15 months with an operational period of three years.

She sought leave to appeal against both her conviction and sentence but at the hearing she abandoned the challenge to her conviction.[1] The only challenge to the sentence advanced in argument was the order that she serve 15 months before the suspension of the sentence of two and a half years.
[1]An order was made dismissing the appeal against conviction.

The applicant was employed as the manager of a certain retail enterprise her employer conducted at Central and Roma Street railway stations. Among her duties she was responsible for reconciling and banking cash receipts. The prosecution case was that there was a deficiency between the cash receipts and the cash banked of $41,423.15 and that the stealing was done over a period from mid to late 2009 and May 2010. Evidence was given by the Chief Executive Officer of her employer that when he confronted the applicant she confessed to stealing and offered as an explanation that she had a gambling problem. At her trial an email was tendered into evidence[2] from…

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 Guillevic

Details

AGLC: R v Guillevic [2011] QCA 273
Case: [2011] QCA 273
Decision Date: 7 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Guillevic, the applicant, an individual convicted of stealing as a servant, sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the court. The conviction stemmed from a theft amounting to $41,423.15. The court sentenced the applicant to two and a half years imprisonment, which was suspended after fifteen months with an operational period of three years. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, warranting an appeal.

The legal issue that the court had to address was whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive or inadequate, thereby justifying an appeal against the sentence. The court considered various factors, including the seriousness of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the theft, and the overall impact on the applicant. It was necessary to evaluate if the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crime committed.

In determining the appeal, the court examined the nature and extent of the theft, as well as the applicant's personal circumstances. The court acknowledged the significant amount stolen but also considered the applicant's background, including any mitigating factors that might have influenced the sentencing. After careful deliberation, the court concluded that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and did not warrant an appeal. The court found that the sentence reflected a fair and appropriate response to the offence committed.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The court upheld the original sentencing decision, finding that the punishment meted out was just and proportionate to the crime committed by the applicant.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

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 Guillevic [2011] QCA 273
PARTIES:	R v GUILLEVIC, Karine Sonia (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 22 of 2011 DC No 221 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 October 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 August 2011
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Chesterman JA and North J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted of stealing as a servant – where the amount involved was $41,423.15 – where the applicant was sentenced to two and a half years imprisonment, suspended after fifteen months with an operational period of three years – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive R v Hearnden[2002] QCA 258, cited R v Jeffree[2010] QCA 47, considered R v La Rosa; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 19, considered R v Lawrie [2008] QCA 97, cited R v Robinson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 169, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf M B Lehane for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent