R v Jacqueline McGowan

[2016] ACTSC 369

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Jacqueline McGowan

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 369

Hearing Date:

9 December 2016

DecisionDate:

9 December 2016

ReasonsDate:

14 December 2016

Before:

Robinson AJ

Decision:

Good behaviour order amended.  Community service component to commence on Monday, 7 August 2017.

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – Punishment – amendment of good behaviour order – changed circumstances of the offender – medical deteriorating pending surgery – order amended

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 112

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 44, 332, 326, 346

Cases Cited:

Goundar v Goddard [2010] ACTSC 56

R v Jacqueline McGowan [2015] ACTSC 320

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Jacqueline McGowan (Offender)

Debra Howell (Applicant)

Representation:

Counsel

Mr M Fernandez (Crown)

Self-represented (Offender)

Self-represented (Applicant)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Self-represented (Offender)

Self-represented (Applicant)

File Number:

SCC 43 of 2015

ROBINSON AJ:

Application

1. Ms Debra Howell has applied under s 112(1)(a) and (b) of the Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT), in her capacity as an officer in ACT Corrective Services, to amend the conditions of a Good Behaviour Order imposed upon the offender.  The applicant seeks the deletion of the Community Service Condition of that Order.

1. Under the Act standing is given to an “interested party” to apply for an amendment.  I did not question that standing as it was clear that the offender herself joined in the application.

1. For relevant purposes, under those provisions, a Court may, by order amend an offender’s Good Behaviour Order and the power to amend includes the power to omit or substitute a condition of the Order.

Background

1. The offender pleaded guilty on 4 June 2015 to four “rolled up” charges. These were to the effect:

(a)Between 1 April 2008 and 28 February 2011 the offender by deception dishonestly obtained a financial advantage to the value of $59,517.13 from Bacardi Lion. (Contrary to s 332 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) with 10 years maximum penalty).

(b)Between 1 April 2008 and 28 February 2011 the offender by deception dishonestly obtained property, namely things in action to the value of $54,915.18 belonging to Bacardi Lion. (Contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code with 10 years maximum penalty).

(c)Between 1 April 2008 and 28 February 2011 the offender made false documents with the intention of using the documents to dishonestly induce someone else to accept the documents as genuine. (Contrary to s 346 of the Criminal Code with 10 years maximum penalty).

(d)On 1 December 2010 the offender attempted by deception dishonestly to obtain property, namely, a thing in action to the value of $15,000 belonging to Bacardi Lion. (Contrary to s 44 and s 332 of Criminal Code with 10 years maximum penalty).

1. As a result of these transactions, Bacardi Lion, her employer, had suffered a loss of $114,432.31.

1. For the reasons given in R v Jacqueline McGowan [2015] ACTSC 320, I sentenced the offender on 22 October 2015…