R v Reid

Case [2016] ACTSC 24 4 February 2016

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	R v Reid
Citation:	[2016] ACTSC 24
Hearing Date	18 December 2015
DecisionDate:	4 February 2016
Before:	Penfold J
Decision:	See [87] – [93] below.
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and Punishment – Sentence – dishonesty offences – obtain property by deception – pleas of guilty – breach of employer’s trust – sustained course of conduct – significance of amount taken – victim impact statements – prior good character – some money used for gambling – suggestion of gambling addiction not supported by evidence – whether Crown obliged to disprove gambling addiction – whether gambling addiction a mitigating factor – comparable cases.
Legislation Cited:	Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 7, 19, 33(1) Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), s 326 Evidence Act 2011 (ACT), s 4(2)
Cases Cited:	Craft v Diebert [2004] ACTCA 15 R v Berry [2012] ACTSC, Burns J, 2 October 2012 R v Chaloner (1990) 49 A Crim R 370 R v CK [2014] ACTSC 188 R v Close [2013] ACTSC, Higgins CJ, 12 August 2013 R v Cousins [2012] ACTSC, Higgins CJ, 26 March 2012 R v Diamond [2015] ACTSC 60 R v Dibley [2009] ACTSC, Burns J, 16 September 2013 R v Foley [2001] ACTSC 109 R v Gibbs [2013] ACTSC 293 R v Hawkins (1989) 45 A Crim R 430 R v Huang (2007) 174 A Crim R 370 R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 R v Phelan (1993) 66 A Crim R 446 R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369 R v Riordan [2015] ACTSC 26 R v Tucker [2010] ACTSC, Refshauge J, 30 August 2010 R v West [2015] ACTSC 134 R v Wheeler [2013] ACTSC, Higgins CJ, 22 February 2013 R v Wsol [2015] ACTSC 112
Parties:	The Queen (Crown) David Reid (Offender)
Representation:	Counsel Ms K Mackenzie (Crown) Mr H Ford (Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown) Hugh Russell Ford (Offender)
File Number:	SCC 196 of 2015

The offences

David Reid has pleaded guilty to seven offences of dishonestly obtaining property by deception. The offence is created by s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT) and carries a maximum penalty including imprisonment for 10 years.

Circumstances of offences

The offences were committed over a period of 12 months between July 2013 and July 2014.

Mr Reid was, in May 2013, appointed as the manager of the Tuggeranong branch of Beyond Bank Australia, a mutual bank whose customers are its members (although I shall refer to them in these remarks as the bank’s customers). In that position he used a variety of methods to remove money from accounts held at the branch and to apply that money to his own benefit.

As the branch manager, Mr Reid was responsible for the cash holdings of the branch, including cash in the safe and the cash in the floats issued to the various tellers. He was trained…

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 Reid

Details

AGLC: R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24
Case: [2016] ACTSC 24
Decision Date: 4 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Reid involved the defendant, Reid, who was charged with obtaining property by deception. Reid had engaged in a sustained course of dishonest conduct by defrauding his employer. Reid pleaded guilty to the charges and the matter proceeded to sentencing. The court was required to consider various legal issues, including the significance of the amount taken, the impact on the victim, Reid’s prior good character, and whether his alleged gambling addiction could be considered a mitigating factor. Notably, the court had to determine if the Crown was required to disprove Reid’s claimed gambling addiction to establish it as a mitigating factor.

The court examined the seriousness of Reid’s offences, which involved a breach of trust and a sustained course of conduct. It considered the victim impact statements which highlighted the significant financial harm caused to Reid’s employer. The court also assessed Reid’s prior good character and the limited use of the stolen funds for gambling. The court concluded that Reid’s suggestion of a gambling addiction was not supported by evidence and that the Crown was not required to disprove this claim to establish it as a mitigating factor. Consequently, the court held that gambling addiction, without substantiation, was not a valid mitigating factor in this case.

After considering all the circumstances, the court determined an appropriate sentence. The judgment detailed the court’s reasoning and the factors it took into account, ultimately deciding on a sentence that balanced the need for deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. The court’s decision also provided guidance on the weight to be given to various mitigating and aggravating factors in similar cases involving dishonesty offences. The final orders, as outlined in the judgment, specified the sentence to be imposed on Reid and any other relevant directions.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [87] – [93] below.

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.

Citations

AGLC Citation

R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24

Most Recent Citation

R v Toumo'ua; R v Schaaf [2016] ACTSC 163

Cases citing this decision · 12 of 12 shown

Director of Public Prosecutions v Parker
[2024] ACTSC 125

…CTSC 299 R v Parker (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 13 R v Parker [2021] ACTSC 57 R v Pham [2015] HCA 39; 256 CLR 550 R v Porter (No 3) [2022] ACTSC 236 R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24 R v Stanley [2015] ACTSC 322 R v Swift [2007] VSCA 52; 15 VR 497 R v Wright [2019] ACTSC 146 Stevens v McCallum [2006] ACTCA 13 Taylor v R [2020] NSW…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Librando
[2024] ACTSC 100 Para 10

…sentence to be imposed, I have taken into account the comparative cases provided to be on behalf of the prosecution and the offender, namely R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24; R v Morris [2017] ACTSC 400; R v NQ [2017] ACTSC 317; R v Ok [2016] ACTSC 132; R v QU [2019] ACTSC 155; Gregurke v The Queen [2014] NTCCA 11; Mooney…
Director of Public Prosecutions v Henry
[2023] ACTSC 384

…91,141 obtained over eight months, 25 percent reduction for plea of guilty, sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment suspended after five), R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24 ($338,103.70 obtained over a 12-month period, 25 percent reduction for plea of guilty, 38 months’ imprisonment suspended after eight), R v NQ [2017] ACTSC…
R v Snowden
[2022] ACTSC 186 Para 1

…($191,141 obtained over eight months, 25 percent reduction for plea of guilty, sentence of 20 months’ imprisonment suspended after five), R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24 ($338,103.70 obtained over a 12-month period, 25 percent reduction for plea of guilty, 38 months’ imprisonment suspended after eight), R v NQ [2017] AC…
R v Subasic
[2022] ACTSC 380 Para 7

…The amount of money involved is relevant ( R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24 at [40]), as are the circumstances of the offence. For example, there is some need for deterrence when the improper use of a credit card is involved as these cards are, these days, quite vulnerable to misuse, but this is not the position here.…
R v QU
[2019] ACTSC 155 Para 1

…ness of these offences, the prosecution submitted that the Court should have regard to the following factors: the amount of money involved ( R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24 ( Reid ) at [40]), the length of time over which the offending occurred, the motive for the offending, the degree of planning and any breach of trust…
Mooney v The Queen
[2018] ACTCA 24

…Mungomery [2004] NSWCCA 450 R v NQ [2017] ACTSC 317 R v Ok [2016] ACTSC 132 R v Pantano (1990) 49 A Crim R 328 R v Pont [2000] NSWCCA 419 R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24 R v Riordan [2015] ACTSC 26 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103 R v TW [2011] ACTCA 25; 6 ACTLR 18 R v Visconti (1982) 2 NSWLR 104 R v West [2015…
R v Mooney
[2017] ACTSC 358 Para 1

…In R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24, for seven counts of obtaining property by deception, the offender was sentenced to three years and two months’ imprisonment (after a 25 per cent discount for the offender’s pleas of guilty), suspended after eight months. The offender was the manager of a bank branch, who removed $338,1…
The Citadel Group Ltd v Alexander
[2017] ACTSC 308

…ited [2014] ACTCA 43 Re Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (Cth); Ex Parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622 Redmond v Masterton Canberra Pty Limited [2016] ACTSC 24 Rural & General Insurance Broking Pty Ltd v Australian Prudential Regulation Authority [2009] ACTSC 67; 231 FLR 199 South Melbourne City Council v Ha…
R v Dugdale
[2017] ACTSC 203 Para 1

…cisions in this Court leading to different results. For example, compare the decisions in R v CA (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 371; 316 FLR 49 and R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24. I have decided not to enter the debate because I think that, even if otherwise valid, the discretion should be exercised against making the order.…
Ghoubriel v The Queen
[2016] ACTCA 66

…; 202 CLR 321 Mill v The Queen [1988] HCA 70; 166 CLR 59 O’Brien v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 47 Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; 194 CLR 610 R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24 R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34 The Queen v TW [2011] ACTCA 25; 6 ACTLR 18 The Queen v Williams [2014] ACTCA 30 Truong v R ; R v Le ; Nguyen v R ; R v Ngu…
R v Toumo'ua; R v Schaaf
[2016] ACTSC 163

…g [2015] ACTSC 138 R v Jansen [2005] ACTCA 20 R v Jansen [2004] ACTSC, Connolly J, 17 December 2004 R v Luong, Nguyen and Cao [2005] VSCA 94 R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24 R v Wheeler [2013] ACTSC, Higgins CJ, 22 February 2013…

View all 12 citing cases →

Cases cited in this decision · 10 of 10 shown

R v Riordan
[2015] ACTSC 26 Para 1

…ithout a community service order, would be an appropriate sentence. In support of his submission he drew my attention to the ACT cases of R v Riordan [2015] ACTSC 26 ( Riordan ); R v Gibbs [2013] ACTSC 293 ( Gibbs ); R v CK [2014] ACTSC 188 ( CK ), where a deferred sentence was imposed; and R v Wsol [2015] ACTSC 1…
R v West
[2015] ACTSC 134 Para 1

…I note also, however, that the Crown says (relying on R v Huang (2007) 174 A Crim R 370 at [42]; R v West [2015] ACTSC 134 ( West ) at [62]-[63]) that a gambling addiction, even if it were accepted as the cause of Mr Reid’s offences, is not a mitigating factor except in rare cases. There has been no suggestion that…
R v Wsol
[2015] ACTSC 112 Para 1

…2015] ACTSC 26 ( Riordan ); R v Gibbs [2013] ACTSC 293 ( Gibbs ); R v CK [2014] ACTSC 188 ( CK ), where a deferred sentence was imposed; and R v Wsol [2015] ACTSC 112 at [27]; [28] ( Wsol ).…
R v Diamond
[2015] ACTSC 60 Para 1

…prosecutor provided a table of sentences in what she saw as generally comparable cases, including Tucker , as well as the cases of West ; R v Diamond [2015] ACTSC 60; R v Foley [2001] ACTSC 109 ( Foley ); R v Dibley [2009] ACTSC, Burns J, 16 September 2013 ( Dibley ); R v Berry [2012] ACTSC, Burns J, 2 October 201…
R v CK
[2014] ACTSC 188 Para 1

…port of his submission he drew my attention to the ACT cases of R v Riordan [2015] ACTSC 26 ( Riordan ); R v Gibbs [2013] ACTSC 293 ( Gibbs ); R v CK [2014] ACTSC 188 ( CK ), where a deferred sentence was imposed; and R v Wsol [2015] ACTSC 112 at [27]; [28] ( Wsol ).…
R v Gibbs
[2013] ACTSC 293 Para 1

…be an appropriate sentence. In support of his submission he drew my attention to the ACT cases of R v Riordan [2015] ACTSC 26 ( Riordan ); R v Gibbs [2013] ACTSC 293 ( Gibbs ); R v CK [2014] ACTSC 188 ( CK ), where a deferred sentence was imposed; and R v Wsol [2015] ACTSC 112 at [27]; [28] ( Wsol ).…
Craft v Diebert
[2004] ACTCA 15 Para 1

…pecially since as a result of his wife’s pregnancy he will need to be the breadwinner for some time after the birth of the baby. In Craft v Diebert [2004] ACTCA 15, Crispin P and Connolly J noted at [10] that:…
R v Foley
[2001] ACTSC 109 Para 1

…of sentences in what she saw as generally comparable cases, including Tucker , as well as the cases of West ; R v Diamond [2015] ACTSC 60; R v Foley [2001] ACTSC 109 ( Foley ); R v Dibley [2009] ACTSC, Burns J, 16 September 2013 ( Dibley ); R v Berry [2012] ACTSC, Burns J, 2 October 2012 ( Berry ); R v Wheeler [20…
R v Qutami
[2001] NSWCCA 353 Para 1

…Mr Reid did not give evidence. This is a convenient point to record that the prosecution reminded me of the comments of Smart AJ in R v Qutami (2001) 127 A Crim R 369 at [58] and [59], with which Spigelman CJ agreed at [79], to the effect that limited weight should be given in a sentencing hearing to “self-serving u…
R v Olbrich
[1999] HCA 54 Para 1

…oes not as I understand it exclude the basic proposition relating to the burden of proof in sentencing proceedings that was affirmed in R v Olbrich (1999) 199 CLR 270 at 281; [27] that a sentencing judge:…

Legislation cited in this decision · 3

Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT)
19, 33(1), 7 4 mentions (from Para 1)
Evidence Act 2011 (ACT)
4(2) 2 mentions (from Para 1)
Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT)
1 mention (from Para 1)