R v Roberts-O'Keefe - [2012] QCA 260

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Roberts-O’Keefe [2012] QCA 260

PARTIES:

R
v
ROBERTS-O’KEEFE, Bronwyn Louise
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 79 of 2012
DC No 1932 of 2005

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

25 September 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

17 September 2012

JUDGES:

Holmes and Gotterson JJA and McMeekin 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 OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on her own pleas of guilty of one count of stealing and one count of fraud – where the sentencing judge ordered the applicant to serve three years imprisonment on the count of stealing and one month imprisonment to be served concurrently on the count of fraud – where the sentencing judge fixed the parole release date at the one-third mark of the term of imprisonment at 16 January 2013 – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances

Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339; [2002] HCA 6, referred
R v Goodger [2009] QCA 377, considered
R v Hutchinson [2010] QCA 22, referred
R v Matauaina[2011] QCA 344, considered
R v Scott [1997] QCA 300, considered
R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; [2007] VSCA 102, referred
Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74, referred

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
D C Boyle for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons of McMeekin J and with the order his Honour proposes.

GOTTERSON JA: I agree with the order proposed by McMeekin J and with the reasons given by his Honour.

McMEEKIN J: On 17th January 2012 the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment in respect of a count of stealing as a servant and one month imprisonment to be served concurrently for a count of fraud. A parole release date was fixed at 16th January 2013 – the one-third mark of the term of imprisonment.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on the basis that it was manifestly excessive.

Stealing as a Servant

The applicant was employed as the office manager for a Harvey World Travel franchise. She had the responsibility of the daily banking of monies. There were 52 dishonest transactions in total undertaken over a four month period. On 22 occasions she “refunded” money from the company’s trust account into three accounts of her own. On another 30 occasions she stole money. On most of those 30 occasions she failed to bank cash payments from customers. Some attempt was made to hide her defalcations by recording sales in…

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 Roberts-O'Keefe

Details

AGLC: R v Roberts-O’Keefe [2012] QCA 260
Case: [2012] QCA 260
Decision Date: 25 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant appealed against her sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. She was convicted on her own pleas of guilty of one count of stealing and one count of fraud. The sentencing judge ordered the applicant to serve three years imprisonment on the count of stealing and one month imprisonment to be served concurrently on the count of fraud. The parole release date was fixed at 16 January 2013, at the one-third mark of the term of imprisonment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances. The court considered the principles governing appellate interference with sentences, which include whether the sentence fell outside the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed. The court also examined the severity of the offences, the personal circumstances of the applicant, and the principles of proportionality and deterrence.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It found that the sentencing judge had considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors and had exercised their discretion appropriately. The court noted that the applicant's offending was serious, involving dishonesty and a breach of trust. However, the court also considered the applicant's guilty pleas, her otherwise good character, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court concluded that the sentence was within the range of sentences that a properly directed sentencing judge could have imposed and that there were no grounds for appellate interference.

The application was refused. The sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was upheld, and the applicant's appeal against sentence was dismissed.

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 Roberts-O’Keefe [2012] QCA 260
PARTIES:	R v ROBERTS-O’KEEFE, Bronwyn Louise (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 79 of 2012 DC No 1932 of 2005
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	25 September 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	17 September 2012
JUDGES:	Holmes and Gotterson JJA and McMeekin 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 OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was convicted on her own pleas of guilty of one count of stealing and one count of fraud – where the sentencing judge ordered the applicant to serve three years imprisonment on the count of stealing and one month imprisonment to be served concurrently on the count of fraud – where the sentencing judge fixed the parole release date at the one-third mark of the term of imprisonment at 16 January 2013 – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances Cameron v The Queen (2002) 209 CLR 339; [2002] HCA 6, referred R v Goodger [2009] QCA 377, considered R v Hutchinson [2010] QCA 22, referred R v Matauaina[2011] QCA 344, considered R v Scott [1997] QCA 300, considered R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; [2007] VSCA 102, referred Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 656; [1998] HCA 74, referred
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf D C Boyle for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent