R v Newton

Case [2010] QCA 101

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Newton [2010] QCA 101

PARTIES:

R
v
NEWTON, Robyn Kaye
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 20 of 2010
DC No 74 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

4 May 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

13 April 2010

JUDGES:

Holmes and Chesterman JJA and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, Holmes JA and Atkinson J concurring as to the orders made, Chesterman JA dissenting

ORDERS:

1.    The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

2.    Appeal allowed, only to the extent of ordering that the applicant be released immediately and otherwise leaving the sentence imposed in place.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where applicant fraudulently claimed social security payments amounting to $50,379.62 – where applicant did not declare income – where applicant had no prior criminal history and whose daughter died during the time offences were committed – where applicant pleaded guilty to two counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception and was sentenced to two years imprisonment to be released after five months on a recognizance for two years in the amount of $2,000 – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2)
Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 134.2(1)

R v Edwards; ex parte Cth DPP[2001] QCA 93, considered
R v Hurst; ex parte Cth DPP[2005] QCA 25, cited
R v Oag[1993] QCA 225, cited
R v Ruha, Ruha & Harris; ex parte Cth DPP[2010] QCA 10, cited
R v Smith[1999] QCA 518, considered
R v Smith[2004] QCA 417, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
D J Mayall for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Commonwealth) for the respondent

  1. HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of Atkinson J and the orders she proposes.

  1. CHESTERMAN JA:  The facts relevant to the offence and to the offender, the applicant, are comprehensively set out and analysed in the reasons for judgment of Atkinson J.  I gratefully adopt her Honour’s rehearsal which allows me to express my dissenting opinion quite briefly.

  1. Atkinson J notes, correctly with respect, that when dealing with those convicted of deceiving the Commonwealth in order to obtain a financial advantage:

“A sentencing judge has a very wide discretion as to the appropriate period of imprisonment, if any, which must be served before an offender is released on recognizance”. 

The breadth of the discretion, of course, increases an applicant’s difficulty in persuading a court that a sentence is manifestly excessive beyond the permissible range of sentence.  An applicant who seeks a reduction of sentence must demonstrate not that another sentence might have been appropriate, or even more appropriate than the one imposed.  An application for…

Continue reading R v Newton

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Newton [2010] QCA 101
Case
[2010] QCA 101
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Newton involved the appellant who was convicted for fraudulently claiming social security payments amounting to $50,379.62. The appellant did not declare income and had no prior criminal history. Notably, the appellant's daughter passed away during the time the offences were committed. The appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of obtaining a financial advantage by deception and was sentenced to two years imprisonment, to be released after five months on a recognizance for two years in the amount of $2,000. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court considered the circumstances of the appellant's offences, including the significant amount of money defrauded, the appellant's lack of prior criminal history, and the personal tragedy of the death of the appellant's daughter during the commission of the offences. The court also considered the principle that the sentence should reflect the culpability of the offender and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the significant culpability of the appellant's conduct in defrauding the social security system of a substantial amount of money. However, the court considered the appellant's lack of prior criminal history and the personal tragedy of the death of the appellant's daughter during the commission of the offences. The court also considered the principle that the sentence should reflect the culpability of the offender and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court found that the sentence of two years imprisonment, with release after five months, was manifestly excessive and did not reflect the appropriate balance between the culpability of the offender and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The court granted the appellant leave to appeal against the sentence and allowed the appeal, only to the extent of ordering that the appellant be released immediately and otherwise leaving the sentence imposed in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for leave to appeal against sentence is granted.

2. Appeal allowed, only to the extent of ordering that the applicant be released immediately and otherwise leaving the sentence imposed in place.

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.