R v Hagan - [1996] QCA 447

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 447
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 442 of 1996 C.A. No. 443 of 1996

Brisbane

Before

Fitzgerald P.
Thomas J.
White J.

[R. v. Hagan]

THE QUEEN

STEPHEN HAGAN

(Applicant)

Fitzgerald P.
Thomas J.
White J.

Judgment delivered 15 November 1996

Judgment of the Court

APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE ARE GRANTED,
THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED.

IT IS ORDERED THAT THE SENTENCE IMPOSED ON THE APPLICANT ON 11 OCTOBER 1996 BE VARIED ONLY BY AN ORDER THAT THE PERIOD OF IMPRISONMENT BE WHOLLY SUSPENDED; OTHERWISE, THE SENTENCES ARE TO STAND.

CATCHWORDS:	SENTENCE - 2 sentences relating to eleven counts of obtaining money by wilfully false promise with intent to defraud - involved false travelling claims - as a result of his offending the applicant lost his job in the public sector and associated financial benefits - had a good work history, timely plea, cooperated with authorities, demonstrated remorse, amount of money involved was relatively small and good prospects of rehabilitation - abuse of trust, need for deterrence - whether a conviction should be recorded, R. v. Beissel (C.A. Nos. 424 and 425 of 1996, ex tempore, delivered 12 November 1996).
Corporations Law, ss. 229, 91A and 9 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, ss. 9 and 12
Counsel:	Mr T. Glynn S.C. for the applicant. Mr D. Bullock for the respondent.
Solicitors:	M. McLaughlin for the applicant. Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	11 November 1996
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 15 November 1996

These are applications for leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon the applicant in the Magistrates Court in Cairns on 20 September and 11 October 1996. On the earlier date, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for four months, wholly suspended with an operational period of two years, in relation to six offences of obtaining money by a wilfully false promise with intent to defraud. The offences had been committed in the period 8 August 1995 to 27 February 1996, and involved false travel claims totalling $1,940.00, all of which the applicant had repaid by the time when he was sentenced. After those offences had been dealt with, investigating police raised another five similar offences committed between 9 February and 22 November 1995. The applicant was interviewed, made full admissions, was charged, pleaded guilty and was sentenced within five days of the first reference by police to those offences. In the circumstances, he did not have an opportunity to make restitution prior to being sentenced on 11 October 1996, but has since repaid the full amount, $1,440.00. His sentence on that occasion was imprisonment for six months, suspended after two months, with an operational period of two years. In the result, that became the effective sentence for all eleven offences. Convictions were recorded.

The applicant is 36 years of age, born on 20 December 1959, and had no prior criminal convictions. He had been a public servant for about…

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 Hagan

Details

AGLC: R v Hagan [1996] QCA 447
Case: [1996] QCA 447
Decision Date: 15/11/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hagan dealt with a defendant who was charged with multiple counts of obtaining money by making false promises with the intent to defraud. The offences involved the defendant falsely claiming travel expenses, which led to significant personal and professional consequences. The matter was heard in the relevant Australian court. The defendant faced the possibility of a conviction that could severely impact his future employment and personal life.

The court had to address several legal issues, including the appropriate sentence for the defendant's actions, considering factors such as the nature and extent of the abuse of trust, the need for deterrence, and the personal circumstances of the defendant. It was necessary to weigh the seriousness of the offences against mitigating factors such as the defendant's good work history, his timely plea of guilty, his cooperation with authorities, and his demonstrated remorse. Additionally, the court had to consider the financial implications of the offences on the defendant and the broader societal impact of recording a conviction.

The court's reasoning was guided by the principles outlined in R. v. Beissel, where the court considered similar issues of sentencing in cases involving false claims. The court acknowledged the defendant's remorse and his potential for rehabilitation, while also recognising the seriousness of his actions in abusing the trust placed in him. After weighing all the factors, the court decided that a conviction should be recorded to serve the purposes of general deterrence and to uphold the integrity of public sector employment. The court balanced these considerations with the defendant's personal circumstances, ultimately deciding on an appropriate sentence.

The final orders included the recording of a conviction and the imposition of a sentence that reflected both the need for punishment and the potential for the defendant's rehabilitation. The court ordered the defendant to pay restitution for the amount defrauded and imposed a community service order to reflect his reintegration into society. The court also considered the impact of the sentence on the defendant's employment prospects and future opportunities for rehabilitation.

Orders