R v Robertson

Case [2008] QCA 164

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Robertson [2008] QCA 164

PARTIES:

R
v
ROBERTSON, Marlene Dorothy
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 29 of 2008
DC No 479 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Ipswich

DELIVERED ON:

20 June 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

26 May 2008

JUDGES:

Fraser JA, Philippides and Daubney JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.    Allow the application for leave to appeal

2.    Allow the appeal

3.    Vary the sentence imposed below such that the applicant be sentenced on each count to a term of imprisonment of three years, to be released after 12 months upon her entering into a recognisance of $2,500, conditioned that she keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of four years

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSON – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN GRANTED – GENERALLY – where dishonest conduct by the applicant resulted in her receiving Commonwealth benefits $121,593.61 in excess of her entitlements over a 26 year period – where the applicant pleaded guilty to the offences of false pretences with intent to defraud, defrauding the Commonwealth and dishonesty causing a loss to the Commonwealth – where the applicant was sentenced on each count to a term of imprisonment for three years to be served concurrently, with a release date on bond after 15 months – where the applicant contends that the sentencing judge failed to take adequate account of her pleas of guilty, co-operation and poor state of health – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A(2), s 19AC(1), s 19AC(4),
s 19AF(1), s 19AG, s 20(1)(b)

Bugmy v The Queen (1990) 169 CLR 525; [1990] HCA 18, applied
Ly v R [2007] NSWCCA 28, considered
R v Acosta [1999] NSWCCA 334, cited
R v Bernier (1998) 102 A Crim R 44, considered
R v Grice [2006] QCA 326, considered
R v Hassarati [2005] QCA 102, considered
R v Hurst; ex parte Commonwealth DPP [2005] QCA 25, cited
R v McDougall & Collas [2006] 2 Qd R 87; QCA 365, cited
R v Minassian [2007] QCA 39, considered
R v To & Do, ex parte Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) [1999] 2 Qd R 166; [1998] QCA 106, cited
Wong v The Queen (2001) 207 CLR 584; [2001] HCA 64, applied

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
M D Nicolson for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Commonwealth Department of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

  1. FRASER JA: The circumstances of the applicant's offending and other matters relevant to sentence are set out in the reasons of Daubney J which I have had the advantage of reading.

  1. At the…

Continue reading R v Robertson

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Robertson [2008] QCA 164
Case
[2008] QCA 164
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Robertson, appealed against the sentence imposed on her after she pleaded guilty to multiple offences, including false pretences with intent to defraud, defrauding the Commonwealth, and dishonesty causing a loss to the Commonwealth. The appellant had engaged in dishonest conduct over a 26-year period, resulting in her receiving Commonwealth benefits $121,593.61 in excess of her entitlements. The primary judge sentenced Robertson to a term of imprisonment for three years on each count, to be served concurrently, with a release date on bond after 15 months. Robertson contended that the sentencing judge failed to take adequate account of her pleas of guilty, co-operation, and poor state of health.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the primary judge failed to take adequate account of Robertson's pleas of guilty, co-operation, and poor state of health. The court found that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and the primary judge did not adequately consider Robertson's pleas of guilty, co-operation, and poor state of health. The court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive because it did not take into account the appellant's guilty pleas, co-operation, and poor state of health. The court found that the primary judge had not adequately considered the appellant's guilty pleas, co-operation, and poor state of health, which were relevant factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

Accordingly, the court allowed the appeal and varied the sentence imposed below such that the appellant be sentenced on each count to a term of imprisonment of three years, to be released after 12 months upon her entering into a recognisance of $2,500, conditioned that she keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of four years.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the application for leave to appeal

2. Allow the appeal

3. Vary the sentence imposed below such that the applicant be sentenced on each count to a term of imprisonment of three years, to be released after 12 months upon her entering into a recognisance of $2,500, conditioned that she keep the peace and be of good behaviour for a period of four years

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.