R v Martin - [2015] QCA 257

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Martin [2015] QCA 257

PARTIES:

R
v
MARTIN, Julie Christine
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 17 of 2015
DC No 190 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh – Unreported, 12 December 2014

DELIVERED ON:

4 December 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 November 2015

JUDGES:

Fraser and Philippides JJA and Jackson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

The order of the court is:

The 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 OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted upon her own plea of guilty for fraud – where the sentencing judge ordered that the applicant be imprisoned for six years with a parole eligibility date of 20 months from the date of the sentence – where the applicant had a moderate gambling disorder and adjustment disorder with depressed mood – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 408C

R v Adams; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2006] QCA 312, cited
R v Cox[2010] QCA 262, cited
R v Gourley[2003] QCA 307, cited
R v Hancox [2006] QCA 333, cited
R v Lim [2004] QCA 172, cited
R v Reischl[2000] QCA 215, cited
R v Shiels [2011] QCA 115, followed
R v Spalding[2002] QCA 538, cited
R v Tindale[2008] QCA 24, cited
R v Williams[2014] QCA 154, cited
R v Wilson[2013] QCA 260, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
S J Farnden for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Jackson J and the order proposed by his Honour.

PHILIPPIDES JA: I agree, for the reasons given by Jackson J, that the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused.

JACKSON J: The applicant pleaded guilty on 12 December 2014 to a single count of fraud as an employee under s 408C(1)(b) and (2)(b) of the Criminal Code. It was ordered that she be imprisoned for six years and the date of eligibility for parole was fixed at 11 August 2016.

Antecedents

The applicant was aged between 45 to 49 years at the time of the offending and 52 at sentence. She had no prior criminal history.

Offending conduct

The offending occurred between 13 June 2007 and 1 July 2011. The applicant was employed by Conmat Nominees Pty Ltd. Conmat carried on business under the name “Action Powder Coaters” from 2003. Conmat operated as a small family business under the control of Mr Perrin and his wife.

The applicant was employed as the company bookkeeper. She was required to record income…

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 Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Martin [2015] QCA 257
Case: [2015] QCA 257
Decision Date: 4 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Martin involved the applicant appealing against the sentence imposed following her conviction for fraud. The applicant had pleaded guilty to the charges and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of six years, with a parole eligibility date set for 20 months from the date of the sentence. The applicant contended that her sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account her moderate gambling disorder and adjustment disorder with depressed mood.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The applicant argued that her personal circumstances, including her mental health conditions, warranted a lesser sentence. The court was required to consider the principles governing appeals against sentence, specifically whether the sentence fell outside the range of sentences that could be regarded as appropriate in the circumstances.

In assessing the appeal, the court examined the severity of the offence, the need for deterrence, and the impact of the applicant's personal circumstances on her culpability and moral blameworthiness. The court concluded that while the applicant's mental health conditions were relevant, they did not significantly mitigate her culpability for the offence. The court also considered the need for general deterrence and the appropriate sentence for the offence of fraud. The court held that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offence and did not amount to a manifest excess.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence, affirming the original sentence imposed by the sentencing judge. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and therefore, the appeal was without merit.

Orders

Orders of the court

The order of the court is:

The 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 Martin [2015] QCA 257
PARTIES:	R v MARTIN, Julie Christine (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 17 of 2015 DC No 190 of 2014
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Beenleigh – Unreported, 12 December 2014
DELIVERED ON:	4 December 2015
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	26 November 2015
JUDGES:	Fraser and Philippides JJA and Jackson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	The order of the court is: The 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 OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted upon her own plea of guilty for fraud – where the sentencing judge ordered that the applicant be imprisoned for six years with a parole eligibility date of 20 months from the date of the sentence – where the applicant had a moderate gambling disorder and adjustment disorder with depressed mood – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Criminal Code (Qld), s 408C R v Adams; ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[2006] QCA 312, cited R v Cox[2010] QCA 262, cited R v Gourley[2003] QCA 307, cited R v Hancox [2006] QCA 333, cited R v Lim [2004] QCA 172, cited R v Reischl[2000] QCA 215, cited R v Shiels [2011] QCA 115, followed R v Spalding[2002] QCA 538, cited R v Tindale[2008] QCA 24, cited R v Williams[2014] QCA 154, cited R v Wilson[2013] QCA 260, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf S J Farnden for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent