R v Phillips

Case [2008] QCA 284

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Phillips & Woolgrove [2008] QCA 284

PARTIES:

R
v
PHILLIPS, Lawrence James
(first applicant)

R
v
WOOLGROVE, Christopher Paul
(second applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 153 of 2008
CA No 154 of 2008
DC No 2070 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Applications

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

19 September 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 July 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Fraser JA and Mackenzie AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Each application for leave to appeal against sentence is dismissed

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – PARTICULAR OFFENCES – OTHER OFFENCES – COMMONWEALTH OFFENCES – where each of the applicants was convicted on his plea of guilty of an offence against s 601ED(5) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) – where the first applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment to be released after five months upon giving security by recognizance in the sum of $2,000 conditioned that he be of good behaviour for a period of two years – where the second applicant was sentenced to two years imprisonment to be released after serving six months on the same conditions as the first applicant – where the first applicant had a number of previous convictions for offences of dishonesty – where the second applicant had a number of previous convictions for offences of dishonesty including a previous conviction against s 1065 of the Corporations Law which is analogous to the provision that created the current offence – where both applicants submitted that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive – whether in the circumstances the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – PARITY – where the second applicant submitted that he was less culpable than the first applicant in the commission of the offending – where the applicants had differing roles in the commission of the offence but were ‘equal partners’ – whether the sentencing judge erred in concluding that there was no basis for distinguishing between the applicants’ respective roles in the offence

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – FACTUAL BASIS FOR SENTENCE – SENTENCE TO BE OF AND RELATED TO OFFENCE –PARTICULAR CASES – where the applicants’ pleas of guilty acknowledged the necessary element of recklessness needed to satisfy the charge – where the applicants were not charged with fraud – where the applicants submitted that the sentencing judge had sentenced them on the basis that their culpability exceeded that of recklessness – whether the sentencing judge erred in the sentencing process

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND…

Continue reading R v Phillips

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Phillips & Woolgrove [2008] QCA 284
Case
[2008] QCA 284
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Phillips, the applicants, having pleaded guilty to charges under section 601ED(5) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), were sentenced to two years imprisonment each, with conditions for early release. Both applicants challenged the severity of their sentences, claiming that they were manifestly excessive and not aligned with the nature of their respective roles in the offence. The applicants further argued that the sentencing judge had erred by considering factors outside the scope of the charges, such as the potential recovery of lost funds and the time elapsed between arrest and sentencing.

The legal issues revolved around whether the sentences imposed were indeed excessive, if the roles of the applicants warranted different treatment, and whether the sentencing judge had correctly considered the necessary elements of recklessness in the offence. Additionally, the applicants contended that the judge had failed to properly account for factors such as the delay in sentencing, time spent in custody, and the applicants' cooperation with authorities.

The court examined the sentencing process and concluded that the judge had appropriately considered the circumstances of the case. The court found no error in the judge's assessment of the applicants' roles or the weight given to their guilty pleas, cooperation, and other mitigating factors. The court held that the sentences were proportionate to the gravity of the offence, and the applicants' submissions did not establish that the sentences were manifestly excessive or otherwise inappropriate.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the applications for leave to appeal against the sentences. The applicants' arguments did not demonstrate any error on the part of the sentencing judge that would warrant a reduction in sentence or a new trial. The sentences imposed were thus upheld, and no further appeal was permitted.

Orders

Orders of the court

Each application for leave to appeal against sentence is 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.