R v Hancox

[2006] QCA 333

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hancox [2006] QCA 333

PARTIES:

R
v
HANCOX, Keith David
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 185 of 2006
DC No 1845 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

1 September 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

1 September 2006

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Wilson 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 AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – PROPERTY OFFENCES – where applicant pleaded guilty to one count of misappropriation of property as an employee of a sum greater than $5,000 and one count of fraud as an employee of a sum greater than $5,000 – where applicant was sentenced to an effective total term of imprisonment of five and a half years with parole eligibility recommendation after 21 months – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

R v Spalding [2002] QCA 538; CA No 241 of 2002, 6 December 2002, followed

COUNSEL:

Applicant appeared on his own behalf
R G Martin SC for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

THE PRESIDENT:  The applicant pleaded guilty on 5 June 2006 to one count of misappropriation of property as an employee of a sum greater than $5,000 between 1 September 1996 and 30 June 1997 and one count of fraud as an employee of a sum greater than $5,000 between 1 July 1997 and 30 September 2001.  The reason for the two charges was because of changes to the criminal law establishing those charges which commenced on 1 July 1997.  On the first count he was sentenced to five and half years' imprisonment and on the second count to four and a half years' imprisonment.  In respect of each count the judge recommended that he be eligible for post-prison
community-based release after 21 months.  The applicant, who is self-represented today, contends that the sentence is manifestly excessive. 

He had no prior criminal convictions and was between 42 and 48 years old at the time of the offences and 53 at sentence.

Count 1 occurred, as I have said, between September 1996 and June 1997 and count 2 between 1 July 1997 and 30 September 2001.  The applicant was employed as the pay master at a margarine plant at Murarrie.  The company operated a large petty cash float ($35,000 per month).  The applicant manipulated the wage records and the petty cash float to defraud the company.  He allowed employees to cash in their benefits such as unused sick leave, long service leave and annual leave for cash payments which he would then enter into the payroll…