R v Lawrie

Case [2008] QCA 97


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Lawrie [2008] QCA 97

PARTIES:

R
v
LAWRIE, Raelene Margaret
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 358 of 2007
DC No 289 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

24 April 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 April 2008

JUDGES:

Muir JA, White and Lyons JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – DISPARITY – applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud as an employee with a circumstance of aggravation – sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months with an operational period of three and a half years – restitution orders made – applicant misappropriated close to $51,000 from two separate companies owned by the applicant’s employer over 20 months – the applicant had become a close confidante of the employer and was in a position of significant trust – at the time of sentencing the applicant had made payments to the employer’s bank of $10,000 as restitution for misdirecting payments made by the companies’ customers – actual restitution to the employer’s companies was only $100 – the applicant used the companies’ money to establish her own business – the employer’s livelihood and reputation have been severely affected – offending only ceased after it was uncovered – there was a timely plea although it did not proceed via an ex officio indictment – applicant had no previous convictions – applicant has two children – whether the applicant’s repayments to the bank and employer prior to sentence had been reflected in the sentence – the sentence was not manifestly excessive

R v Adams; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 312, considered
R v Alexander[2004] QCA 11, considered
R v La Rosa; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2006] QCA 19; considered
R v Robinson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 169, considered
R v Vinson [2002] QCA 379, considered

COUNSEL:

M J Byrne QC for the applicant
M J Copley for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McKays Solicitors for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

  1. MUIR JA:  I agree with the reasons of Lyons J and the order she proposes.

  1. WHITE J:  I agree with Lyons J that this application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused for the reasons which she gives.

  1. LYONS J:  On 16 November 2007 the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud as an employee with a circumstance of aggravation.  She was sentenced in the District Court to imprisonment for three and a half years, suspended after 12 months with an operational period of three and a half years.  The applicant appeals against this sentence on the basis that it was…

Continue reading R v Lawrie

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Lawrie [2008] QCA 97
Case
[2008] QCA 97
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Lawrie, the applicant appealed against the sentence imposed following their guilty plea to three counts of fraud as an employee, which included an aggravating circumstance. The applicant was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months with an operational period of three and a half years, and was also ordered to make restitution. The applicant had misappropriated nearly $51,000 from two companies over a period of 20 months, using the funds to establish their own business. Although the applicant had made some repayments prior to sentencing, the actual restitution made to the employer's companies was only $100. The applicant's employer suffered severe damage to their livelihood and reputation, and the offending only ceased after it was uncovered.

The central legal issue in the appeal was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or disproportionate, particularly in light of the applicant's prior restitution payments and the lack of previous convictions. The applicant argued that the sentence should reflect the significant pre-sentencing payments made, and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court needed to determine if the sentence imposed was appropriate given the circumstances and the mitigating factors presented.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or disproportionate. It considered the significant breach of trust and the severity of the impact on the employer, as well as the applicant's position of trust. Although the applicant had made some payments prior to sentencing, the court determined that these did not sufficiently reflect in the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature of the offence and the mitigating factors, and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal dismissed

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.