R v Morris - [2017] ACTSC 400

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Morris
Citation:	[2017] ACTSC 400
Hearing Date:	2 November 2017
DecisionDate:	1 December 2017
Before:	Burns J
Decision:	See [12]-[16]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – Obtaining property by deception – significant offence – no prior convictions – financial pressure – good prospects of rehabilitation – low likelihood of re-offending – full-time imprisonment – reparation order – prisoner at risk
Legislation Cited:	Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) s 326
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) Jennifer Doone Morris (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms S Naidu (Crown) Mr R Davies (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) ACT Legal Aid (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 197 of 2017

Burns J:

Jennifer Morris, you appear before me today, having pleaded guilty to eight charges of obtaining property by deception. Those eight charges cover periods from February 2016 to September 2016. Varying amounts of money were involved in those offences, ranging from $4,065.60 in March 2016 through to $41,785.90 in August 2016. Some of these charges are rolled up charges, in the sense that they cover more than one transaction.

The agreed Statement of Facts which was put before me records that on 19 occasions between February 2016 and September 2016 inclusive, you dishonestly facilitated the transfer of money from your employer’s bank account into your own bank account by falsifying supplier invoices. Over this eight-month period, the total amount transferred was $191,141.40. The maximum penalty for each of these charges of obtaining property by deception, contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), is 10 years imprisonment, a fine of $150,000.00, or both. I note that you entered pleas with respect to these charges at an early time in the Magistrates Court and you were subsequently committed for sentence to this Court.

The Statement of Facts is, as one might expect, quite detailed in relation to these transactions and I do not propose to now recite the facts in relation to each of the charges. With regard to the objective seriousness of these offences, it is clear that a large amount of money was involved in these transactions, as I have said, just over $191,000.00 in total, in addition to which a substantial loss was occasioned to your employer, just in excess of $161,000.00, against which your employer was able to claim $100,000.00 under an insurance policy. These offences, according to the victim impact statement which was put before me, had a significant impact on the financial position of your employer. It also affected the morale of your fellow employees and your employers and affected trust between those in the workplace.

It is clear that this offending was a very significant breach of trust on your part. The means that you used to commit these offences was not particularly sophisticated and, indeed, I am satisfied that it was bound to be ultimately discovered, but these offences were premeditated and involved a degree of…

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 Morris

Details

AGLC: R v Morris [2017] ACTSC 400
Case: [2017] ACTSC 400
Decision Date: 1 December 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Morris involved the defendant, Morris, who was charged with obtaining property by deception. The matter was heard and determined in the County Court of Victoria. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Morris, considering the circumstances of the offence and his background.

The court was tasked with deciding whether the offence warranted a custodial sentence and, if so, what the appropriate length of imprisonment should be. It was also required to consider whether a reparation order should be imposed and if there were any special circumstances that warranted a departure from the standard sentencing principles.

The court found that Morris's offence was significant, involving substantial financial gain and a clear breach of trust. However, it also acknowledged that Morris had no prior convictions, was under significant financial pressure, and had good prospects of rehabilitation. The likelihood of re-offending was deemed low. The court balanced these factors against the need to deter Morris and others from engaging in similar conduct. It was concluded that a full-time imprisonment sentence was necessary, but the specific term was to be determined after considering the individual circumstances. Additionally, the court ordered a reparation payment to the victim, reflecting the harm caused by Morris's actions. Finally, given Morris's vulnerability as a prisoner, the court made an order for appropriate measures to ensure his safety during incarceration.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [12]-[16]

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.