R v Leighton

Case [2016] ACTSC 354


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Leighton

Citation:

[2016] ACTSC 354

Hearing Date:

10 October 2016

DecisionDate:

4 November 2016

Before:

Burns J

Decision:

See [33]-[45]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – theft – pleas of guilty – assistance to authorities – very good prospects for rehabilitation – reduced non-parole period – terms of imprisonment.

Legislation Cited:

Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 308

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Joshua Leighton (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

Ms P Burgoyne-Scutts (Crown)

Mr J Sabharwal (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Sharman Robertson Solicitors (Offender)

File Number:

SCC 156 of 2016

BURNS J:

  1. Joshua Leighton, you have pleaded guilty to 23 counts of theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). Each such offence carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment, a fine of $150,000, or both.

  1. A comprehensive Statement of Facts was tendered at your sentence hearing. For present purposes it is sufficient to note the following. The thefts arise from a fraud against the Public Trustee of the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) (the Public Trustee) whereupon you received monies paid from the Public Trustee into your bank account for purported maintenance work on client properties. You did not undertake that work. The monies were deposited pursuant to an arrangement between yourself and an employee of the Public Trustee, who for present purposes I will identify as UN. You were a tradesperson who had previously conducted a small amount of legitimate work on client properties for the Public Trustee.

  1. These thefts occurred between 26 March 2010 and 2 September 2013. The total amount deposited into your bank account as the proceeds of these thefts was $675,734.00. While there were only 23 charges, the Statement of Facts makes it clear that a number of those charges were rolled up charges involving a number of transactions. There were, in total, 116 fraudulent financial transactions and 2 goods transactions involved in these offences.

  1. You and UN had an arrangement whereby UN would arrange for payments to be made into your account for work that was never done. False cheque requisitions were raised on numerous occasions by UN and on two other occasions by another employee of the Public Trustee, who I will refer as ET, for work allegedly completed on the properties of various clients whose affairs the Public Trustee administered.

  1. Monies were then paid into your account in accordance with those requisitions. You would withdraw that money as cash on the same day that it was deposited. Under your agreement, you gave UN 60 per cent of each such payment and you retained 40 per cent. You have admitted that you did not do any of the work particularised on the cheque requisitions. You and UN used the money to visit brothels, to gamble on poker machines and also for everyday expenses such as bills and rent.

  1. UN, ET and another contractor have been charged with…

Continue reading R v Leighton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Leighton [2016] ACTSC 354
Case
[2016] ACTSC 354
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Leighton involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to charges of theft. The matter was heard in the relevant criminal court. The primary legal issues before the court were the determination of an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the guilty pleas, the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation, and the need for assistance to authorities.

In assessing the appropriate sentence, the court considered the defendant's admissions of guilt and their cooperation with the authorities. The court was also tasked with evaluating the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation, which were described as very good. These factors, alongside the need for the defendant to assist the authorities, played a significant role in the sentencing decision. The court had to balance these considerations against the severity of the offence and the principles of justice and deterrence.

The court, after weighing all the factors, decided to impose a sentence that included terms of imprisonment. The non-parole period was reduced in recognition of the defendant's good prospects for rehabilitation and their cooperation with the authorities. The final orders, detailed from [33] to [45], outlined the specifics of the sentence, including the length of imprisonment and any conditions attached to the sentence. This decision reflects the court's consideration of the mitigating factors while ensuring that the sentence serves the interests of justice and public safety.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [33]-[45]

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.