R v Hunter; ex parte

[2000] QCA 97

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Hunter;  ex parte A-G [2000] QCA 97

PARTIES:

R
v
HUNTER, Ana-Maria
(respondent)
EX PARTE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 380 of 1999
DC No 679 of 1998

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence appeal by Attorney-General

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

31 March 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 March 2000

JUDGES:

Davies and Pincus JJA and Moynihan J
Judgment of the Court

ORDER:

Appeal allowed.  Set aside sentences imposed below and on each offence impose a sentence of three years imprisonment.  Recommend that the respondent be eligible for parole after serving one year of that term.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OTHER OFFENCES – respondent convicted of four counts of perjury – counts related to where respondent was the principal witness in a six month civil trial – where respondent's perjury continued over a sustained period – where motive for perjured testimony was monetary gain – consideration of mitigating circumstances – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate

Back CA No 289 of 1992, 12 November 1992, considered
Evans CA No 148 of 1996, 9 July 1996, considered
Johnson CA No 360 of 1989, 19 March 1990, considered
Ozdemir CA No 361 of 1993, 22 November 1993, considered
Wood CA No 271 of 1991, 28 November 1991, considered

COUNSEL:

Mr P F Rutledge for appellant
Mr S J Hamlyn-Harris for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for appellant
Legal Aid Queensland for respondent

[1]      THE COURT:  On 9 November last year the respondent was convicted, after a trial in the District Court, on four counts of perjury; on 31 May 1996, between 2 June 1996 and 5 June 1996, on 6 June 1996 and on 13 June 1996.  All consisted of lying on oath during the course of a civil trial in which she was the principal witness for a company, Naomi Marble and Granite Pty Ltd, in an action against an insurance company, FAI General Insurance Limited, for $1.3M upon a claim under a policy of insurance.  She was the managing director of that company.  The civil trial lasted for about six months and the respondent's evidence alone occupied about 20 days, during 17 of which she was cross-examined.

[2]      Also on 9 November the respondent was sentenced to two years imprisonment on each count with a recommendation that she be eligible for release on parole after serving five months of that term.  The Attorney-General appeals against that sentence on the ground of its manifest inadequacy for three reasons;  that it fails to reflect adequately the gravity of the offence generally and in this case in particular;  that it fails to take sufficiently into account the aspect of general deterrence;  and that the sentencing judge gave too much weight to factors…