R v Jones - [2008] QCA 251

[2008] QCA 251

COURT OF APPEAL

HOLMES JA
MACKENZIE AJA
PHILIPPIDES J

CA No 132 of 2008
DC No 252 of 2001

THE QUEEN

JONES, William Adam

BRISBANE

DATE 27/08/2008

JUDGMENT

HOLMES JA: The applicant for leave to appeal against sentence was convicted of eight counts of fraud with a circumstance of aggravation (that the amount involved exceeded $5000) and one count of fraud simpliciter. On 16th May 2008 he was sentenced on a plea of guilty to four years and three months' imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date fixed at 16th January 2009. 284 days in pre-sentence custody were declared as already served. The net effect was that he was eligible for parole after serving approximately 17 and a half months, slightly over a third of the head sentence.

The total amount involved in the applicant's frauds was in the order of $113,000, of which approximately $38,000 was able to be recouped. Eight of the nine offences involved the applicant's obtaining finance to buy motor vehicles by providing false information on the relevant applications. On one application he used a false name, on others he gave a different middle name from his own, or a false birth date, presumably to avoid any effective credit search. On some occasions he provided a false telephone contact number and in six instances identified a residential property which he falsely claimed to own. More significantly, in every case the applicant falsely claimed to have been in steady employment with a named employer for a number of years and to be earning a regular salary.

The amounts of finance obtained in this way ranged from approximately $2,300 (the fraud simpliciter charge) to $23,000. The precise nature of the finance arrangements was not explained but it seems that at least in some cases the finance companies retained a proprietary interest in the vehicles and were able by recovering them to recoup some of their losses.

The remaining fraud charge entailed the applicant's sale of a vehicle the subject of a repossession order which he had bought with finance in Victoria. He brought it to Queensland, gave it a false vehicle identification number, registered it under a false name and sold it to an unsuspecting citizen. She lost it when it was identified and reclaimed as the finance company's property and was left out of pocket in the amount of $18,500.

All of the offences occurred in Townsville, between July 1998 and November 1999. The applicant was interviewed by police in respect of one of the matters and made very limited concessions but declined any further interview in relation to the other charges. An indictment was presented against him on 22nd June 2001. On 5th December 2001 a warrant was issued for his arrest. He had breached his bail conditions and returned to Victoria. He was taken back into custody in Queensland on 2nd August 2007. On 22nd April 2008, the matter was listed for sentence.

The applicant was 52 years old when he was…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2008] QCA 251
Case: [2008] QCA 251
Decision Date: 27/08/2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jones involved an appeal against sentence by William Adam Jones. Jones was convicted on eight counts of fraud with a circumstance of aggravation and one count of fraud simpliciter. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. The primary legal issue was whether the four years and three months' imprisonment, with parole eligibility after serving approximately 17 and a half months, was outside the proper exercise of the sentencing discretion.

The Court of Appeal considered the case of R v Alexander, where a similar range of sentences was imposed, and the case of GAC, where the sentence was varied due to the offender's assistance to the Australian Crime Commission. The Court noted that Jones' criminal history and the amount involved in his fraud were less significant compared to the other cases. However, the persistent and systematic nature of his offending, as well as the significant sum of money obtained through his frauds, were taken into account. The Court also considered the sentencing judge's consideration of Jones' health concerns and his cooperation by pleading guilty.

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, given the circumstances of the case and the precedents set by similar cases. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was dismissed. The final orders of the Court were that the application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed.

Orders