R v Howse - [2002] VSC 197

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

No. 1410 of 2002

THE QUEEN

PETER JOHN HOWSE

---

JUDGE:	FLATMAN J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 May 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 May 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Howse
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 197

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence - Deficiency in Trust Account – Theft - False Accounting - Delay in prosecution - Chronic Depressive Disorder

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms Claire Quin	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr Paul Holdenson Q.C.	Nedovic & Co
For Legal Practice Board	Mr Joe Barravecchio

HIS HONOUR:

Peter John Howse, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of deficiency in a trust account, six counts of theft and one count of false accounting under s.42(1) of the Legal Profession Practice Act 1958 and ss.74 and 83(1)(a) of the Crimes Act 1958.

I have been provided with a comprehensive statement of the material facts in this matter prepared by the Crown and agreed to by the defence. Nevertheless, it is appropriate I think to set out in broad terms the circumstances behind this presentment in this matter.

The presentment spans a period from November 1994 until March of 1996. At all material times you were a solicitor and the holder of a practising certificate pursuant to the provisions of s.100 Legal Profession Practice Act 1958. You were the holder of a full practising certificate from 26 September 1978 to 28 May 1996. You are no longer the holder of a current Victorian Practising Certificate under the Legal Practice Act 1996 (Victoria).

On 15 April 1996, Deputy Chief Inspector Graham Delaney (now deceased) from the Law Institute of Victoria attended at your Wantirna practice as a result of a written complaint made to the Law Institute by Mr Bruce McGinley. At that time, you admitted to Mr Delaney that there was deficiency in the McGinley trust account and you also admitted that there was probably a greater deficiency than that which related solely to the McGinley matter.

You also admitted that there were problems in relation to dealings with clients called Ruscitti and you were not able to offer Mr Delaney a sufficient or satisfactory explanation for these deficiencies.

You consented to the appointment of a receiver under the relevant provisions of the Legal Profession Practice Act 1954 (Victoria) by order of Mr Justice Beach on 16 April 1996. You agreed to be interviewed by the police and five interviews were then conducted. As a result of the interviews and following the examination of the trust records of your practice, the following offences were revealed which constitute the counts on this presentment. I turn now to the presentment before the Court.

In October 1994, Mr Ruscitti engaged you to act for him in relation to some criminal charges that he was facing. All moneys paid to you were to be deposited into the trust account and were…

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 Howse

Details

AGLC: R v Howse [2002] VSC 197
Case: [2002] VSC 197
Decision Date: 24 May 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Howse involved the prosecution of Howse for offences of theft, false accounting, and deficiency in a trust account. The matter was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Howse, a former accountant, was charged with these offences arising from his conduct while managing financial affairs for his clients. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Howse, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as his mental health condition, specifically Chronic Depressive Disorder.

The primary legal issues before the court were the severity and nature of the offences committed by Howse, and the appropriate sentencing approach in light of his mental health condition. The court needed to weigh the gravity of the offences against the mitigating factors, including Howse's cooperation with authorities, his remorse, and his mental health status. Additionally, the court considered the delay in prosecution and its impact on the sentencing process. It was necessary for the court to balance these factors to arrive at a just and appropriate sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the court first acknowledged the seriousness of Howse's actions, which involved significant breaches of trust and financial mismanagement. However, the court also recognised the substantial mitigating factors present in the case, including Howse's mental health condition and his cooperation with the authorities. The court found that while the offences warranted a significant custodial sentence, the mitigating factors warranted a reduction in the overall penalty. The court ultimately sentenced Howse to a term of imprisonment, taking into account both the culpability of the offences and the mitigating circumstances. The sentence was structured to ensure that Howse received appropriate punishment while also addressing his mental health needs.

Orders