R v McMahon

In the case of R v McMahon, the appellant, McMahon, was convicted on one indictment of six counts of fraud as an employee, and on a later indictment of one count of fraud as an employee to the value of $30,000 or more. The appellant was sentenced to two years imprisonment for each offence on the earlier indictment and five years imprisonment for the offence on the later indictment. All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently, with a parole eligibility date of 28 February 2015. The appellant applied for leave to appeal against the sentence on the grounds that it was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, and whether the sentencing judge failed to give sufficient consideration to the payment of restitution, the appellant’s guilty pleas, limited criminal history, and demonstrated contrition and remorse. The court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and whether the parole eligibility date should have been earlier.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, but the parole eligibility date should be substituted with an earlier date of 1 September 2014. The court found that the sentencing judge had considered the payment of restitution, guilty pleas, limited criminal history, and demonstrated contrition and remorse, but had not given sufficient weight to these factors in determining the parole eligibility date. The court held that an earlier parole eligibility date should have been imposed.

The court granted the application for leave to appeal against sentence and allowed the appeal to the limited extent of substituting a parole eligibility date of 1 September 2014 for the existing parole eligibility date of 28 February 2015.