R v Quinn - [2005] VSCA 100

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 283 of 2004

THE QUEEN

ALLAN JOHN QUINN

---

JUDGES:	BATT, CHERNOV and VINCENT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 April 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 April 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 100

---

Criminal law - Sentencing - 15 counts including theft and obtaining property by deception - Elderly and vulnerable victims - Sentenced for like offences committed during substantially same period in New South Wales and Queensland - Due recognition not given by previous sentencing courts to appellant's significant assistance to Queensland authorities regarding unrelated matter - Significant sentencing discount entitlement for such assistance - Sentence of 30 months' imprisonment with 18 months suspended for three years manifestly excessive when notionally combined with sentences imposed for New South Wales and Queensland offending - Appellant re-sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment with 14 months suspended for period of two years - Mill v. The Queen (1988) 166 C.L.R. 59 applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms R.E. Carlin	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr M.J. Croucher	Slades & Parsons

BATT, J.A.:

I will ask Chernov, J.A. to deliver the first judgment in this matter.

CHERNOV, J.A.:

The appellant, Allan John Quinn, who is now aged 53 years, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne on 15 October 2004 to a presentment containing 15 counts, namely, five counts of theft (counts 1, 2, 5, 9 and 12), four counts of obtaining property by deception (counts 3, 7, 10 and 14), four counts of attempting to obtain property by deception (counts 4, 8, 11 and 15), one count of obtaining financial advantage by deception (count 6) and one count of handling stolen goods (count 13). The maximum penalty for theft and obtaining property by deception is 10 years' imprisonment. The maximum penalty for attempting to obtain property by deception and handling stolen goods is five years’ and 15 years' imprisonment respectively. The appellant admitted 48 prior convictions from 22 court appearances in New South Wales, Queensland and Victoria between November 1969 and November 1994. These included 25 convictions for dishonesty-related offences and a conviction for larceny from a bank and armed robbery. In addition, as I shall explain later, on 17 November 2000 the appellant was sentenced in Queensland to six years' imprisonment, commencing on 1 July 1999, for like offences committed by him there. Furthermore, on 19 December 2002, he was sentenced by the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal to a total effective sentence of six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years in respect of like offences committed in that State, but in light of his offending and sentence in Queensland. I will say something more about these sentences later.

The appellant admitted his offending conduct the subject of these proceedings during a police interview conducted on 4 May 2000, while he was in custody in relation to his Queensland offending. Notwithstanding these admissions, Victorian…

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 Quinn

Details

AGLC: R v Quinn [2005] VSCA 100
Case: [2005] VSCA 100
Decision Date: 14 April 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Quinn was convicted and sentenced for 15 counts, including theft and obtaining property by deception, targeting elderly and vulnerable victims. The case was heard and determined in a relevant Australian court. The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriateness of the sentence imposed on Quinn, particularly whether it adequately reflected his significant assistance to Queensland authorities in an unrelated matter, which had not been recognised by the previous sentencing courts. This assistance entitled Quinn to a significant sentencing discount.

The court held that the sentence of 30 months' imprisonment with 18 months suspended for three years was manifestly excessive when notionally combined with the sentences imposed for the New South Wales and Queensland offending. It was determined that the sentencing courts had not given due recognition to Quinn's substantial assistance, which warranted a significant discount. The court applied the principles outlined in Mill v. The Queen (1988) 166 C.L.R. 59 to re-sentence Quinn. Consequently, Quinn was re-sentenced to 20 months' imprisonment with 14 months suspended for a period of two years.

The final orders of the court involved the re-sentencing of Quinn to a more proportionate and just sentence that reflected the discount due to his significant assistance to the authorities. This decision underscored the importance of recognising and appropriately weighing factors such as substantial assistance when determining sentences in criminal cases.

Orders