R v Illguth - [2014] QCA 222

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Illguth [2014] QCA 222

PARTIES:

R
v
ILLGUTH, Prudence
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 319 of 2013
DC No 1 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Roma

DELIVERED ON:

5 September 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 August 2014

JUDGES:

Holmes and Morrison JJA and Atkinson 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 is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant was convicted after a six day trial of one count of stealing, as a clerk, property valued over $5,000 – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment – where the precise amount taken by the applicant was uncertain – where the applicant had admitted to taking about $100,000, although the total shortfall was $467,744 – where the trial judge sentenced the applicant on the basis she took somewhere between $200,000 and $250,000 – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v Adams[1999] QCA 326, cited
R v Allen[2005] QCA 73, cited
R v Gasenzer[2013] QCA 9, considered
R v Gourley[2003] QCA 307, considered
R v La Rosa; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 19, cited
R v Tindale[2008] QCA 24, considered
R v Ward[2008] QCA 222, considered

COUNSEL:

A S Colavitti (sol) for the applicant
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Colavitti Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Atkinson J and the order she proposes.

MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of Atkinson J and agree with those reasons and the order her Honour proposes.

ATKINSON J: Prudence Illguth was convicted on 20 November 2013 in the District Court in Roma after a six day trial on one count of stealing, as a clerk, property valued over $5,000. On 21 November 2013 she was sentenced to a term of five years imprisonment. She has sought leave to appeal against the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances and that “a Five year head sentence without recommendations where the accused had no previous history nor was any exact quantum ever proven in evidence.”

The full charge on the indictment was “That on divers dates between the 1st day of July, 2009 and the seventeenth day of September, 2010 at Charleville in the State of Queensland, Prudence Illguth being the clerk of Charleville Memorial Clubs Association Incorporated stole money the property of Charleville Memorial Clubs Association Incorporated, the value of which was more than $5,000.” The Memorial Clubs Association is commonly known as the RSL.

The circumstances of the applicant's offending as found by the learned sentencing judge…

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 Illguth

Details

AGLC: R v Illguth [2014] QCA 222
Case: [2014] QCA 222
Decision Date: 5 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Illguth, the applicant, upon conviction following a lengthy six-day trial, was found guilty of stealing as a clerk property valued over $5,000. The court sentenced the applicant to five years imprisonment, a decision that the applicant now seeks to challenge on appeal, specifically targeting the sentence as manifestly excessive. The trial court's sentencing decision was based on an estimated amount taken by the applicant, which was placed between $200,000 and $250,000, although the precise amount stolen remained uncertain.

The central legal issue in this appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive given the uncertain nature of the exact amount stolen and the applicant's admission of taking approximately $100,000, with the total shortfall amounting to $467,744. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionately harsh relative to the actual amount taken by her, and the appellate court was tasked with determining if the sentence indeed fell outside the range of reasonable outcomes for the crime committed.

The court considered the extent of the applicant's offending, her remorse, and the trial judge's assessment of the circumstances. The appellate court found that while the sentence was indeed severe, it did not consider it to be manifestly excessive. The court emphasised that the trial judge had carefully considered all relevant factors and had exercised judicial discretion within the bounds of what was reasonable. The appellate court concluded that the sentence, while harsh, was not outside the range of acceptable outcomes for the crime, and thus, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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 Illguth [2014] QCA 222
PARTIES:	R v ILLGUTH, Prudence (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 319 of 2013 DC No 1 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Roma
DELIVERED ON:	5 September 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 August 2014
JUDGES:	Holmes and Morrison JJA and Atkinson 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 is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant was convicted after a six day trial of one count of stealing, as a clerk, property valued over $5,000 – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment – where the precise amount taken by the applicant was uncertain – where the applicant had admitted to taking about $100,000, although the total shortfall was $467,744 – where the trial judge sentenced the applicant on the basis she took somewhere between $200,000 and $250,000 – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive R v Adams[1999] QCA 326, cited R v Allen[2005] QCA 73, cited R v Gasenzer[2013] QCA 9, considered R v Gourley[2003] QCA 307, considered R v La Rosa; ex parte A-G (Qld)[2006] QCA 19, cited R v Tindale[2008] QCA 24, considered R v Ward[2008] QCA 222, considered
COUNSEL:	A S Colavitti (sol) for the applicant B J Power for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Colavitti Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent