R v Mynott

Case [2020] ACTSC 3


SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Mynott

Citation:

[2020] ACTSC 3

Hearing Dates:

1 November 2019; 28 January 2020

DecisionDate:

28 January 2020

Before:

Elkaim J

Decision:

See [25]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – sentence – obtain financial advantage by deception – unlawful possession of stolen property – credit card transactions

Legislation Cited:

Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) s 42
Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) ss 324(1), 332

Parties:

The Queen (Crown)

Kristian Mynott (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

L Sutton (Crown)

B Morrisroe (Offender)

Solicitors

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Legal Aid ACT (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 21 of 2019; SCC 22 of 2019

ELKAIM J:

  1. On 5 February 2019 the offender was committed to the Supreme Court of the ACT for sentencing on seven charges. Six of those charges relate to the offence of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, contrary to s 332 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment, a fine of $150,000 or both.

  1. The seventh charge is one of unlawful possession of stolen property, contrary to s 324(1) of the Criminal Code. This offence carries a maximum penalty of 6 months’ imprisonment, a fine of $7,500 or both.

  1. The offences are somewhat dated, having occurred in June, August and November 2017. The offender entered an early plea of guilty to the unlawful possession of stolen property charge in December 2017. After initially pleading not guilty to the obtaining financial advantage by deception charges, the offender eventually entered a plea of guilty to all remaining charges on 5 February 2019. The charges have been ‘rolled up’ to reflect a series of purchases using different credit cards.

  1. In June 2017 the offender was working at Canberra Firewood Supplies. He had access to customer credit card details. The following are some of the details of the purchases on customer credit cards: The first was to book an airfare to Sydney for $338.00. He then booked a limousine for $132.00. Later that day the credit card was used for another flight, back to Canberra, costing $309.00. On the same day $13.25 was charged to the card for a service provided by the ‘Grindr’ smart phone application.

  1. The next day an airfare costing $1,291.70 for a flight from Canberra to Adelaide was charged to the card. The total amount charged to the same card was $2,083.95.

  1. On 7 June 2017 the offender, using a different credit card, booked an airfare for $418.50.

  1. The next day the offender purchased another airfare for $301.88 with a different credit card. Later the same day another flight was booked on the same credit card, costing $589.62. The offender then gave the credit card details to another person who bought a fur rug for $125.00 using the card.

  1. On 9 June 2017 the other person again used the card, spending $590.00, $198.00, $199.00, $578.00 and $399.23 on separate purchases.

  1. The offender also kept…

Continue reading R v Mynott

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Mynott [2020] ACTSC 3
Case
[2020] ACTSC 3
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the respondent, Mynott, and the Crown. Mynott was charged with obtaining financial advantage by deception and unlawful possession of stolen property. The charges stemmed from a series of credit card transactions that were executed without the authorisation of the card holder. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The court was required to consider the appropriate sentence for Mynott, who had pleaded guilty to the charges. The legal issues before the court involved assessing the culpability of Mynott, the gravity of the offences, and the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crimes. The court also had to consider the impact of the offences on the victims and the principles of sentencing in accordance with the relevant legislative provisions.

In determining the sentence, the court took into account the totality of Mynott’s offending, which involved multiple transactions and significant financial gain. The court emphasised the seriousness of the deception and the breach of trust involved. The court also noted the absence of any mitigating factors that could warrant a lesser sentence. After weighing the aggravating and mitigating factors, the court imposed a sentence of imprisonment, with specific details of the term and conditions outlined in the judgment.

The final orders of the court were that Mynott be sentenced to imprisonment for a period specified in the judgment, along with any additional conditions or requirements as set out in the order. The court also directed that the sentence be backdated to the date of Mynott’s arrest, reflecting the time served in custody prior to the sentencing hearing.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [25]

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.