R v Ralphs - [2004] VSCA 33

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 149 of 2003

THE QUEEN
	v.
PATRICIA MARGARET RALPHS

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES, J.A., BONGIORNO and O'BRYAN, A.JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	9 March 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 March 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 33

---

Criminal law - Theft - Whether appellant properly sentenced as "continuing criminal enterprise offender" - Only one offence involving more than $50,000 - Individual counts involving less than $50,000 "rolled up" to produce single counts for more than $50,000 - Such counts not qualifying as "continuing criminal enterprise offence" - Sentencing Act 1991 Part 2B and Schedule 1A discussed.

Criminal law - Sentence - Theft - Law clerk - More than $500,000 stolen over 9-year period - Breach of trust - Guilty plea - Personal considerations - Sentence of 5¼ years and non-parole period of 3 years fixed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mrs C.M. Quin	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr M.J. Croucher	Michael J. Gleeson & Associates Pty.

CHARLES, J.A.:

On 25 March 2003 the appellant, who is now aged 68, was committed for trial by hand-up brief procedure in the Magistrates' Court at Melbourne on 148 charges of theft. She pleaded guilty. Then on 23 May 2003 the appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court to a presentment alleging eight counts of theft, these counts "rolling up" the original 148 committal charges. It is desirable now to set out shortly the allegations contained in each count, which alleged that the following amounts belonging to the persons named were stolen on or between particular dates in counts numbered as follows -

1. $144,000 from Marie Worland between 6 July 1992 and 24 May 1995.
2.$128,254.86 from Sylvia Ladson between 5 June 1996 and 17 January 2001.
3.$168,252.44 from Leon James Ervin between 28 February 1997 and 30 October 1998.
4.$42,000 from Leon James Ervin between 27 March and 29 May 1998.
5.$27,000 from Brian Douglas Kelly between 15 November 1999 and 16 January 2001.
6.$375,745.46 from Bendigo Bank Ltd. between 8 January and 14 February 2001.
7.$202,321.25 from Virginia Anne Thornley on 18 January 2001.
8.$7,000 from Janette Ervin on 18 January 2001.

The maximum custodial penalty for theft was 10 years' imprisonment.

A lengthy plea was heard, during which the prosecutor tendered by consent a statement of material facts and graphs, the contents of which were admitted by the defence. The prosecutor submitted that the appellant should be sentenced as a continuing criminal enterprise offender, an issue to which I shall turn later. A plea in mitigation was made during which various reports and references were tendered, including a report by Mr Bernard Healey, a consultant medical psychologist. Three witnesses were called on behalf of the appellant during the plea, Detective Senior Constable Nick Svarnias, Mrs Anne Clarke, the appellant's daughter, and Mr Healey.

On 26 May 2003 the judge sentenced the appellant on the eight counts as follows: on counts 1, 2 and…

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 Ralphs

Details

AGLC: R v Ralphs [2004] VSCA 33
Case: [2004] VSCA 33
Decision Date: 9 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ralphs dealt with the sentencing of the appellant, who had been convicted of theft. The appellant, a law clerk, had stolen over $500,000 over a period of nine years, leading to a breach of trust. The appellant had entered a guilty plea, which was taken into account by the court. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellant could be properly sentenced as a "continuing criminal enterprise offender," a classification under the Sentencing Act 1991 that requires certain conditions to be met. Specifically, the court had to determine if the appellant's actions constituted a "continuing criminal enterprise offence," which mandates a higher sentencing threshold.

The court examined whether the individual counts of theft, each involving less than $50,000, could be "rolled up" to produce a single count for more than $50,000, thereby qualifying the appellant as a continuing criminal enterprise offender. The court found that such "rolled up" counts did not satisfy the criteria for a continuing criminal enterprise offence. The appellant's actions, while serious, did not meet the specific statutory requirements for this classification, and thus, the court had to proceed with sentencing under the general provisions of the Act. The court also considered personal factors and the appellant's guilty plea when determining the appropriate sentence.

In reaching its decision, the court concluded that the appellant's actions warranted a substantial custodial sentence, but not one that classified him as a continuing criminal enterprise offender. The appellant was sentenced to 5¼ years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 3 years. This sentence balanced the seriousness of the crime with the mitigating factors present in the case. The court's decision underscores the importance of adhering to statutory definitions and criteria when applying specific sentencing classifications.

Orders