R v Robinson; ex parte A-G (Qld) - [2004] QCA 169

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Robinson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 169

PARTIES:

R
v
ROBINSON, Geoffrey Frederick
(respondent)
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 102 of 2004
DC No 552 of 2004

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

20 May 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 May 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and Chesterman and Atkinson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Allow the appeal

2.   Instead of the sentence imposed at first instance, including the order for compensation, substitute a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment suspended after six months with an operational period of three years

3.   A warrant is ordered for the arrest of the respondent but it is to lie in the Registry for seven days

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OTHER OFFENCES – where respondent convicted on plea of guilty to dishonestly obtaining $33,239 from employer over 14 month period – where sentenced to six months imprisonment wholly suspended and ordered to pay compensation within three months, with six months imprisonment in default – where respondent was carer for elderly mother and imprisonment would cause her hardship – where compensation had not yet been paid – where fraud was committed to support gambling addiction – whether sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate

R v Blackhall-Cain [2000] QCA 380; CA No 178 of 2000, 15 September 2000, distinguished
R v Bourke [1993] QCA 579; CA No 428 of 1993, 8 December 1993, considered
R v Geertz [1995] QCA 240; CA No 121 of 1995, 26 April 1995, considered
R v Mara; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1999] QCA 308; CA No 107 of 1999, 6 August 1999, distinguished
R v Riesenweber; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1996] QCA 504; CA No 430 of 1996, 15 November 1996, distinguished
R v Sigley [2002] QCA 11; CA No 297 of 2001, 4 February 2002, distinguished
R v Symes [1999] QCA 200; CA No 46 of 1999, 28 May 1999, considered
R v Vinson [2002] QCA 379; CA No 180 of 2002, 27 September 2002, considered

COUNSEL:

R G Martin for the appellant
N V Weston for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant
Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: Robinson pleaded guilty to dishonestly obtaining $33,239 from the Queensland Police Credit Union Ltd between April 2002 and June 2003. He was sentenced to six months imprisonment suspended forthwith with an operational period of two years and ordered to pay compensation of $28,928.74 within three months in default imprisonment for six months. The appellant, the Attorney-General of Queensland, contends that the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Robinson; ex parte A-G (Qld) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] QCA 169
Decision Date: 20 May 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an appeal by the Attorney-General of Queensland against the sentence imposed on the respondent, Robinson. Robinson had pleaded guilty to charges of dishonestly obtaining $33,239 from his employer over a 14-month period. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence of six months imprisonment, wholly suspended, and an order for compensation of $33,239 with imprisonment in default was manifestly inadequate. The appeal centred on whether the sentence failed to adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence, which was committed to support a gambling addiction.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, the respondent's personal circumstances, and the impact of the sentence on both the respondent and the community. The court also considered the principle of proportionality in sentencing and the need for deterrence, given the nature of the fraud committed. In assessing the adequacy of the sentence, the court weighed the respondent's care responsibilities for his elderly mother against the need to impose a punishment that reflects the gravity of the offence.

In its reasoning, the court found that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court noted the significant sum obtained dishonestly and the impact on the employer, as well as the respondent's addiction issues which contributed to the commission of the fraud. The court considered the suspended sentence insufficient to address the need for deterrence and to impose a penalty that reflects the seriousness of the offence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, substituting the original sentence with a term of two and a half years imprisonment, suspended after six months, with an operational period of three years. A warrant for arrest was ordered but was to remain in the Registry for seven days to allow for compliance with the new sentence conditions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Allow the appeal

2. Instead of the sentence imposed at first instance, including the order for compensation, substitute a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment suspended after six months with an operational period of three years

3. A warrant is ordered for the arrest of the respondent but it is to lie in the Registry for seven days

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 Robinson; ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 169
PARTIES:	R v ROBINSON, Geoffrey Frederick (respondent) ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND (appellant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 102 of 2004 DC No 552 of 2004
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Appeal by A-G (Qld)
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	20 May 2004
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 May 2004
JUDGES:	McMurdo P and Chesterman and Atkinson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Allow the appeal 2. Instead of the sentence imposed at first instance, including the order for compensation, substitute a sentence of two and a half years imprisonment suspended after six months with an operational period of three years 3. A warrant is ordered for the arrest of the respondent but it is to lie in the Registry for seven days
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY ATTORNEY-GENERAL OR OTHER CROWN LAW OFFICER – APPLICATIONS TO INCREASE SENTENCE – OTHER OFFENCES – where respondent convicted on plea of guilty to dishonestly obtaining $33,239 from employer over 14 month period – where sentenced to six months imprisonment wholly suspended and ordered to pay compensation within three months, with six months imprisonment in default – where respondent was carer for elderly mother and imprisonment would cause her hardship – where compensation had not yet been paid – where fraud was committed to support gambling addiction – whether sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate R v Blackhall-Cain [2000] QCA 380; CA No 178 of 2000, 15 September 2000, distinguished R v Bourke [1993] QCA 579; CA No 428 of 1993, 8 December 1993, considered R v Geertz [1995] QCA 240; CA No 121 of 1995, 26 April 1995, considered R v Mara; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1999] QCA 308; CA No 107 of 1999, 6 August 1999, distinguished R v Riesenweber; ex parte A-G (Qld) [1996] QCA 504; CA No 430 of 1996, 15 November 1996, distinguished R v Sigley [2002] QCA 11; CA No 297 of 2001, 4 February 2002, distinguished R v Symes [1999] QCA 200; CA No 46 of 1999, 28 May 1999, considered R v Vinson [2002] QCA 379; CA No 180 of 2002, 27 September 2002, considered
COUNSEL:	R G Martin for the appellant N V Weston for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the appellant Legal Aid Queensland for the respondent