R v McPhee

The appeal concerned a sentence imposed in the District Court on the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to 181 counts of theft. The appellant, a court-appointed trustee, had misappropriated a total of $1,949,827.43, with the offending being aggravated by her abuse of a position of trust. The appeal was brought on the grounds that the sentence was manifestly excessive, specifically that the head sentence was too high, the discount for the guilty pleas was insufficient, the non-parole period was too high, and the sentencing judge had erred by proceeding on an incorrect factual background.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence of 13 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of ten years was manifestly excessive, and if so, to re-sentence the appellant. This involved considering the appropriate discount for the guilty pleas, the impact of the abuse of trust, and the factual basis upon which the original sentence was imposed.

The court allowed the appeal, finding that the original sentence was excessive. In re-sentencing, the court applied a starting point of 13 years for the head sentence but reduced it by three years and ten months, representing approximately 30 per cent, to account for the appellant's early guilty pleas. While acknowledging that some pleas were made early enough to potentially attract a larger discount, the court found that a greater discount for later offences was not warranted given the appellant's opportunity to consider her position. A non-parole period of six years was set, and both the head sentence and non-parole period were backdated to the commencement of the original sentence.