R v Massey

Case [2015] QCA 254

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Massey [2015] QCA 254

PARTIES:

R
v
MASSEY, John Wayne
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 62 of 2015
DC No 313 of 2014

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Southport – Unreported, 12 March 2015

DELIVERED ON:

4 December 2015

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

23 November 2015

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P and Philippides JA and Jackson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

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 – where the applicant pleaded guilty to 14 counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception and 11 counts of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception – where whilst he was an undischarged bankrupt, the applicant lodged 25 business activity statements with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) claiming total refunds of $257,655.45 – where the ATO paid $141,048.22 but refused the remaining claims which totalled $116,607.23 – where the applicant’s deception was premeditated and relatively sophisticated – where the applicant was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, to be released after serving 14 months, upon him giving security by recognizance in the sum of $5,000 and on condition he be of good behaviour for four years – where counsel for the applicant contends that the sentence is manifestly excessive given the applicant’s age; his long-standing chronic back condition and more recent acute pain; his consequent discomfort, lack of mobility and his reliance on various pain relief – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A
Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 134.2(1)

Cao v R [2010] NSWCCA 109, considered
Edwards v R [2013] NSWCCA 54, considered
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
R v Kertebani [2010] NSWCCA 221, considered

COUNSEL:

F Richards for the applicant
M J Woodford for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

  1. MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant, John Massey, pleaded guilty on 8 August 2014 to 14 counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception under s 134.2(1) Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) and 11 counts of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception. On 12 March 2015 he was sentenced on each count of obtaining financial advantage by deception to three and a half years imprisonment, to be released after serving 14 months, upon him giving security by recognizance in the sum of $5,000 and on condition he be of good behaviour for four years. He was also to pay reparation to the Commonwealth in the sum of $141,048.22. On each remaining count he was sentenced to a lesser concurrent sentence. He applies for leave to appeal against his sentence contending it was manifestly excessive.

    Antecedents

  2. He was aged 61 and 62…

Continue reading R v Massey

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Massey [2015] QCA 254
Case
[2015] QCA 254
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Massey, appealed against his sentence in the Court of Appeal. Massey had pleaded guilty to 14 counts of obtaining financial advantage by deception and 11 counts of attempting to obtain financial advantage by deception. While he was an undischarged bankrupt, Massey lodged 25 business activity statements with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO), claiming total refunds of $257,655.45. The ATO paid $141,048.22 but refused the remaining claims amounting to $116,607.23. Massey’s deception was premeditated and relatively sophisticated. He was sentenced to three and a half years imprisonment, to be released after serving 14 months, upon him giving security by recognizance in the sum of $5,000 and on condition he be of good behaviour for four years. Massey’s counsel argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive due to his age, chronic back condition, acute pain, discomfort, lack of mobility, and reliance on pain relief.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, as well as the circumstances of the offence and the offender. The court examined the severity of the deception, the extent of the financial gain, and the impact on the victims. The court also considered Massey’s personal circumstances, including his age, health issues, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court assessed whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the offence and the offender.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the deception was premeditated and sophisticated, causing significant financial loss to the ATO. The court considered the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was within the range of penalties typically imposed for such offences. The court found that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and was not disproportionate to the offender’s culpability. The court concluded that there was no basis for interference with the sentence.

The court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The appeal against sentence was dismissed, and the original sentence stood.

Orders

Orders of the court

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.