R v Hayes - [2010] QCA 96

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hayes [2010] QCA 96

PARTIES:

R
v
HAYES, Wendy Louise
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 1 of 2010
DC No 3548 of 2009
DC No 3547 of 2009

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 April 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

15 April 2010

JUDGES:

Holmes and Chesterman JJA and Ann Lyons J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Applications refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 10 offences, each involving a form of dishonesty – where the offending involved persistent and sophisticated fraud – where all sentences were to be served concurrently such that the applicant would be eligible for parole after having served 18 months – where applicant cooperated extensively with authorities – where applicant suffers from a personality disorder – whether sentence was manifestly excessive in comparison to other like offenders, and considering the applicant’s cooperation and disorder

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19AC(4)
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 134.2(1)

R v Fuller[2009] QCA 195, cited
R v Goodger[2009] QCA 377, cited

COUNSEL:

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

SOLICITORS:

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

HOLMES JA: I agree with the order Chesterman JA proposes, and with his reasons, with a single qualification. Although I agree that in this case the applicant’s personality disorder was not such as to amount to a mitigating factor, I prefer not to express any more general conclusion on the topic of whether personality disorders can constitute mitigating circumstances.

CHESTERMAN JA: On 21 December 2009 the applicant pleaded guilty to 10 offences each involving a form of dishonesty. Nine of the charges, contained in one indictment (“state indictment”), were offences against various sections of the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld). The tenth charge, contained in a separate indictment (“commonwealth indictment”) presented by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, charged the applicant with dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage from the Commonwealth by deception contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth).

The applicant was sentenced to four and a half years’ imprisonment for the offence set out in count 7 of the state indictment. Her parole eligibility date was set for 12 November 2010 which, taking into account 224 days spent in pre-sentence custody, meant that the applicant would be eligible for parole after having served 18 months.

On each of the other counts in the state indictment, and on the one count on the commonwealth indictment, she was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment. All sentences were to be served concurrently.

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 Hayes

Details

AGLC: R v Hayes [2010] QCA 96
Case: [2010] QCA 96
Decision Date: 30 April 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal by Hayes against his sentence. Hayes pleaded guilty to ten offences, each involving a form of dishonesty, and engaged in persistent and sophisticated fraud. The court sentenced Hayes to concurrent sentences, making him eligible for parole after serving 18 months. Hayes appealed, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive compared to similar cases and that it failed to consider his cooperation with authorities and his personality disorder. The court considered these arguments and the principles governing sentence appeals, including the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the offence and the offender’s culpability, and the role of sentencing in deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court identified two primary legal issues. First, it needed to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive when compared to similar cases. Second, the court had to assess whether the sentence appropriately took into account Hayes’s extensive cooperation with authorities and his personality disorder. The court examined the principles of sentencing, focusing on proportionality and the specific circumstances of the case. It also considered relevant precedents to evaluate whether the sentence was excessive and if it failed to consider the mitigating factors presented.

The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the offender’s culpability. It noted that the offences were serious, involving persistent and sophisticated fraud. The court also acknowledged Hayes’s cooperation and his personality disorder but held that these factors did not warrant a significantly different sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the mitigating factors had been appropriately considered. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

The court's final orders were that Hayes’s applications for relief were refused. The sentence imposed by the lower court would stand, and Hayes would remain eligible for parole after serving 18 months.

Orders

Orders of the court

Applications 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 Hayes [2010] QCA 96
PARTIES:	R v HAYES, Wendy Louise (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 1 of 2010 DC No 3548 of 2009 DC No 3547 of 2009
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	30 April 2010
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	15 April 2010
JUDGES:	Holmes and Chesterman JJA and Ann Lyons J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Applications refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 10 offences, each involving a form of dishonesty – where the offending involved persistent and sophisticated fraud – where all sentences were to be served concurrently such that the applicant would be eligible for parole after having served 18 months – where applicant cooperated extensively with authorities – where applicant suffers from a personality disorder – whether sentence was manifestly excessive in comparison to other like offenders, and considering the applicant’s cooperation and disorder Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 19AC(4) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 134.2(1) R v Fuller[2009] QCA 195, cited R v Goodger[2009] QCA 377, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf M B Lehane for the first respondent M Nicolson for the second respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the first respondent Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the second respondent