R v Pinnuck - [2014] QCA 189

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Pinnuck [2014] QCA 189

PARTIES:

R
v
PINNUCK, Christopher Paul
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 323 of 2013
DC No 80 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

8 August 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 June 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of one count of fraud to the value of $30,000 or more and one count of fraud simpliciter – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for five years to be suspended after serving twenty months with an operational period of five years – where the offending involved the forgery of signatures on guarantees to obtain finance – where the applicant had a criminal history for other dishonesty offences – where the applicant received no direct financial gain or profit but the applicant’s offending did allow his employer to commence a business and provide him with employment – where there was a lengthy history in bringing the matter to final hearing including four mistrials between July 2012 and April 2013 – where those mistrials could not be attributed to the applicant – where the learned sentencing judge treated the pleas of guilty as timely – where the applicant has pre-existing health conditions – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C(1)(e), s 408C(1)(f), s 408C(2)(d)

R v Fares[2012] QCA 13, cited
R v Goodger[2009] QCA 377, considered
R v McMahon[2013] QCA 240, considered
R v Parker[2007] QCA 22, considered
R v Pinnuck, unreported, District Court of Queensland, 19 May 1995, Noud DCJ, related
R v Smith[2009] QCA 204, considered
R v Yarwood (2011) 220 A Crim R 497; [2011] QCA 367, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
S J Farnden appeared for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Morrison JA and the order proposed by his Honour.

MORRISON JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on him on 27 November 2013. On that day he pleaded guilty to two charges of fraud, namely:

1. a count of fraud involving property in excess of $30,000, contrary to s 408C(1)(f) and (2)(f) of the Criminal Code; and

2. fraud contrary to s 408C(1)(e) of the Criminal Code.

The sentence imposed on 27 November 2013 was in respect of both counts, and was for a period of imprisonment of five years to be suspended after serving a period 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 Pinnuck

Details

AGLC: R v Pinnuck [2014] QCA 189
Case: [2014] QCA 189
Decision Date: 8 August 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pinnuck involved the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to one count of fraud involving a sum of $30,000 or more and one count of fraud simpliciter. The matter came before the court on an appeal against the sentence imposed, with the appellant arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for five years, which was suspended after a period of twenty months, with an operational period of five years. The offending involved the forgery of signatures on guarantees to obtain finance, and the appellant had a criminal history of other dishonesty offences. Despite not receiving direct financial gain from the offending, the appellant's actions allowed his employer to commence a business and provide him with employment. The lengthy history of bringing the matter to final hearing, including four mistrials between July 2012 and April 2013, was noted, though these mistrials could not be attributed to the appellant. The sentencing judge treated the pleas of guilty as timely and took into account the appellant's pre-existing health conditions.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offending, the appellant's criminal history, and other relevant factors. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionately severe, particularly given that he received no direct financial gain or profit from the offending. The court considered the appellant's arguments and the submissions made by both parties. The court also examined the principles of sentencing, including the need for deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation, as well as the need to consider the impact of the sentence on the appellant's health conditions.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court recognised the seriousness of the offending, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also considered the appellant's pre-existing health conditions but found that they did not warrant a reduction in the sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the offending. The court refused the application to appeal against the sentence.

The court's final orders were that the application to appeal against the sentence was refused. The appellant's sentence of imprisonment for five years, suspended after a period of twenty months, with an operational period of five years, was upheld. The court's decision recognised the seriousness of the offending and the need for an appropriate sentence that balanced the principles of deterrence, denunciation, and rehabilitation with the impact of the sentence on the appellant's health conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused.

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 Pinnuck [2014] QCA 189
PARTIES:	R v PINNUCK, Christopher Paul (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 323 of 2013 DC No 80 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	8 August 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 June 2014
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE – where the applicant was convicted on his own plea of guilty of one count of fraud to the value of $30,000 or more and one count of fraud simpliciter – where the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for five years to be suspended after serving twenty months with an operational period of five years – where the offending involved the forgery of signatures on guarantees to obtain finance – where the applicant had a criminal history for other dishonesty offences – where the applicant received no direct financial gain or profit but the applicant’s offending did allow his employer to commence a business and provide him with employment – where there was a lengthy history in bringing the matter to final hearing including four mistrials between July 2012 and April 2013 – where those mistrials could not be attributed to the applicant – where the learned sentencing judge treated the pleas of guilty as timely – where the applicant has pre-existing health conditions – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C(1)(e), s 408C(1)(f), s 408C(2)(d) R v Fares[2012] QCA 13, cited R v Goodger[2009] QCA 377, considered R v McMahon[2013] QCA 240, considered R v Parker[2007] QCA 22, considered R v Pinnuck, unreported, District Court of Queensland, 19 May 1995, Noud DCJ, related R v Smith[2009] QCA 204, considered R v Yarwood (2011) 220 A Crim R 497; [2011] QCA 367, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf S J Farnden appeared for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent