SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | R v Mooney |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 358 |
Hearing Date: | 1 November 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 3 November 2017 |
Before: | Murrell CJ |
Decision: | Sentenced to total period of three years’ imprisonment with an 18 month nonparole period. Reparation order made in the sum of $157,609. |
Catchwords: | CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – property offences – obtain property by deception – use false document – obtain financial advantage by deception – pleas of guilty – breach of employer’s trust – sustained course of conduct – victim impact statements – where offender has post-traumatic stress disorder – no causal connection between post-traumatic stress disorder and offence – white collar crime – general and specific deterrence – full-time imprisonment – reparation order |
Legislation Cited: | Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT) ss 7, 19, 33, 109 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 326, 332, 347 |
Cases Cited: | Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37 R v Kilic [2016] HCA 48; 259 CLR 256 |
Parties: | The Queen (Crown) Trisha Lee Mooney (Offender) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr T Hickey (Crown) Mr J McCarthy (Offender) |
| Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Slater and Gordon Lawyers (Offender) | |
File Number: | SCC 210 of 2016 |
MURRELL CJ:
The offender is to be sentenced on three counts of obtaining property by deception contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) (Criminal Code) (Counts 1–3), one count of using a false document contrary to s 347 of the Criminal Code (Count 4) and one count of obtaining financial advantage by deception contrary to s 332 of the Criminal Code (Count 5).
For each offence, the maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment and/or a fine (the fines vary, but in each case they are substantial).
Over a four-year period between November 2010 and December 2014, the offender used her position as the finance officer in a not-for-profit organisation (the organisation) to make unauthorised payments to herself (Counts 1–3) and to make unauthorised personal purchases on the organisation’s credit card (Count 4). She did this on hundreds of occasions, gaining a total benefit of $157,609.06. In addition, in July 2014 the offender forged a loan agreement between herself and the organisation in order to cover up an unauthorised “loan” for the offender to purchase a new car (Count 5).
Pleas of guilty
The offender was committed for trial on 71 charges.
In November 2016, the Crown filed an indictment containing nine counts. Four of the counts were abandoned when the offender pleaded guilty. Of the four counts, two concerned the background to Count 4, and two concerned allegations that were later withdrawn. However, the course of criminal conduct upon which the Crown relied in support of the five counts that proceeded did not differ greatly from…
Continue reading R v Mooney
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Mooney [2017] ACTSC 358
- Case
- [2017] ACTSC 358
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court weighed the aggravating factors, such as the breach of trust, the sustained course of conduct, and the significant financial loss to the victims, against the mitigating factors, including the defendant's guilty pleas and the impact of his post-traumatic stress disorder. The court concluded that there was no causal connection between the defendant's disorder and his criminal conduct. The court also recognised the need for general deterrence in cases of white-collar crime. In light of these considerations, the court determined that a term of full-time imprisonment, coupled with a reparation order, was the most suitable sentence to address the seriousness of the offences and to provide a measure of reparations to the victims.
The defendant was sentenced to a total period of three years' imprisonment, with an 18-month non-parole period. In addition, a reparation order was made in the sum of $157,609 to compensate the victims for their financial losses. The court's decision balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the requirement to consider the defendant's personal circumstances and the impact of his actions on the victims. The sentence aimed to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system while also providing an opportunity for the defendant to make amends for his wrongdoings.
Orders
Orders of the court
Sentenced to total period of three years’ imprisonment with an 18 month nonparole period.
Reparation order made in the sum of $157,609.
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.