R v Murphy - [2004] QCA 56

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Murphy [2004] QCA 56

PARTIES:

R
v
MURPHY, Megan Jane
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 11 of 2004
DC No 3248 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

8 March 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 March 2004

JUDGES:

Davies and Jerrard JJA and McMurdo J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE - where applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of dishonesty - where applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment - where applicant had heroin addiction - whether sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Vinson [2002] QCA 379; CA No 180 of 2002, 27 September 2002, cited

R v Pearse [2003] QCA 167; CA No 41 of 2003, 22 April 2003, cited

COUNSEL:

Applicant appeared on her own behalf
D A Holliday for respondent

SOLICITORS:

Applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent

DAVIES JA: On 18 December 2003 the applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court to three counts of dishonesty. The first was that on divers dates between 4 June 2002 and 18 July 2002 she dishonestly obtained sums of money from Medibank Private totalling a little under $6,000.

The second was that on dates between 31 July 2002 and 2 November 2002, she made a written statement knowing that that statement was false or misleading in a material particular and was capable of being used in connection with the claim for a benefit or payment under the Health Insurance Act 1973, and the third was that on various dates between 8 July 2002 and 16 September 2002 she dishonestly obtained sums of money from Medical Benefit Fund of Australia totalling, again, a little under $7,000.

On each of the first and third of those offences she was sentenced to two years imprisonment suspended after serving six months with an operational period of three years. On the second, which was a Commonwealth offence, she was sentenced to two years imprisonment to be released after serving six months upon giving security by recognizance in the sum of $1,000 conditional that she be of good behaviour for three years.

The total amount obtained in consequence of this fraudulent conduct was nearly $18,000. It involved over 250 fraudulent claims for health services that had not been performed.

In various ways the applicant obtained details of persons and forged doctors’ receipts for fictitious services to those persons. She then made a claim in each case as an agent for those persons.

The applicant was first interviewed by police in relation to some of these fraudulent claims on 17 August 2002. She then made full admissions to the police in…

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 Murphy

Details

AGLC: R v Murphy [2004] QCA 56
Case: [2004] QCA 56
Decision Date: 8 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Murphy involved the applicant, Murphy, who pleaded guilty to three counts of dishonesty. The sentencing court imposed a six-month imprisonment term. Murphy appealed on the basis that the sentence was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of his heroin addiction. The appeal was heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account all relevant factors, including Murphy's personal circumstances. The Court considered whether the trial judge erred in not sufficiently taking into account the mitigating factors presented, such as Murphy's addiction and the impact of potential imprisonment on his ability to obtain treatment and rehabilitation. The Court also considered whether the sentence was disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offence.

The Court of Appeal, in dismissing the application for leave to appeal, found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors, including Murphy's heroin addiction. The Court held that the sentence of six months imprisonment was not manifestly excessive given the nature and seriousness of the offences committed, and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The Court emphasised that the sentence imposed was within the range of penalties that could be considered appropriate for the offences, and that the trial judge's consideration of the mitigating factors was adequate. The Court concluded that there was no error in the sentence that warranted an appeal.

The final order of the Court was to dismiss the application for leave to appeal against the sentence. The sentence of six months imprisonment imposed by the trial court was upheld as not manifestly excessive.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

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.

CITATION:	R v Murphy [2004] QCA 56
PARTIES:	R v MURPHY, Megan Jane (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 11 of 2004 DC No 3248 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	8 March 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 March 2004
JUDGES:	Davies and Jerrard JJA and McMurdo J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT - SENTENCE - FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT - CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE - where applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of dishonesty - where applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment - where applicant had heroin addiction - whether sentence was manifestly excessive R v Vinson [2002] QCA 379; CA No 180 of 2002, 27 September 2002, cited R v Pearse [2003] QCA 167; CA No 41 of 2003, 22 April 2003, cited
COUNSEL:	Applicant appeared on her own behalf D A Holliday for respondent
SOLICITORS:	Applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for respondent