SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Hargraves and Stoten [2010] QSC 188
PARTIES:
R
v
ADAM JOHN HARGRAVES
(defendant)
DANIEL ARAN STOTEN
(defendant)FILE NO/S:
Indictment 13 of 2010
DIVISION:
Trial
PROCEEDING:
Sentence
ORIGINATING COURT:
Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
8 June 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
19 March 2010
JUDGE:
Fryberg J
ORDERS:
For Adam John Hargraves:
1. Impose a sentence of imprisonment of 6½ years, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months.
2. Declare the period of 93 days between 8 March 2010 and 8 June 2010 imprisonment already served under the sentence.
3. Direct that the Chief Executive of Corrective Services be advised in writing of the declaration and its details.
For Daniel Aran Stoten:
1. Impose a sentence of imprisonment of 6½ years, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months.
2. Declare the period of 93 days between 8 March 2010 and 8 June 2010 imprisonment already served under the sentence.
3. Direct that the Chief Executive of Corrective Services be advised in writing of the declaration and its details.
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law – Particular offences – Property offences – Other frauds and impositions – Fraud – Defrauding the Commonwealth – Sentence
Criminal law – Sentence – Sentencing orders – Non-parole period or minimum term – Queensland – Federal offenders – Whether there is a “norm” or desirable range of proportionality between the head sentence and non-parole period
Corrective Services Act1988 (Qld), s 9
Corrective Services Act2006 (Qld), s 214
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A, s 16E, s 16F, s 17A, s 19A, s 19AA, s 19AB, s 19AL, s 19AM, s 19AN, s 19AQ, s 19AS, s 19AU, s 19AV, s 19AZC
Criminal Code Act1995 (Cth), s 135.4
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld), s 132C
Income Tax Assessment Act1936 (Cth), s 226J
Judiciary Act1903 (Cth), s 68(1)
Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act1987 (Cth), s 43B
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 154, s 159A
Bryce v Chief Executive Officer of Customs (No 2)[2010] QSC 125, cited
Cheung v The Queen (2001) 209 CLR 1; [2001] HCA 67, cited
Director of Public Prosecutions v Hamman, unreported, Court of Appeal, NSW, Nos 60388 and 60457 of 1998, 1 December 1998, cited
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v El Karhani (1990) 21 NSWLR 370, cited
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Goldberg (2001) 184 ALR 387; [2001] VSCA 107, cited
Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v Rowson [2007] VSCA 176, cited
Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89; [2007] HCA 22, cited
Leeth v The Commonwealth (1992) 174 CLR 455; [1992] HCA 29, cited
Pearce v R (2005) 216 ALR 690; [2005] WASCA 74, cited
R v Bedington [1970] Qd R 353, cited
R v El-Rashid, unreported, Court of Criminal Appeal, NSW, No 60682 of 1994, 7 April 1995, cited
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Hargraves and Stoten and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2010] QSC 188
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The key legal issue before the court was whether there exists a norm or a desirable range of proportionality between the head sentence and the non-parole period in cases of fraud against the Commonwealth under federal legislation. The appellants argued that the sentences imposed were disproportionate and that the non-parole periods were too long given the nature and circumstances of the offence. The court had to assess the sentences in light of established sentencing principles and relevant case law to determine if the lower court had erred in setting the non-parole periods.
The Court of Appeal considered the seriousness of the offences, the culpability of the appellants, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. It noted that while the offences were serious, they did not involve violence or significant harm to individuals. The court found that the lower court had erred in setting the non-parole periods, which it deemed to be excessively long. It concluded that a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months was disproportionate to the offences committed. The court therefore reduced the non-parole periods to align with a more proportionate sentencing framework.
The court ordered that the sentences be amended to reflect a head sentence of 6½ years with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months for both appellants. It also directed that the period of 93 days already served by the appellants be declared as time already served under the new sentences. The Chief Executive of Corrective Services was to be notified of these changes in writing.
Orders
Orders of the court
For Adam John Hargraves:
1. Impose a sentence of imprisonment of 6½ years, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months.
2. Declare the period of 93 days between 8 March 2010 and 8 June 2010 imprisonment already served under the sentence.
3. Direct that the Chief Executive of Corrective Services be advised in writing of the declaration and its details.
For Daniel Aran Stoten:
1. Impose a sentence of imprisonment of 6½ years, with a non-parole period of 3 years and 9 months.
2. Declare the period of 93 days between 8 March 2010 and 8 June 2010 imprisonment already served under the sentence.
3. Direct that the Chief Executive of Corrective Services be advised in writing of the declaration and its details.
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.