R v Royal - [2003] NSWCCA 260

CITATION: R v Royal [2003] NSWCCA 260

HEARING DATE(S): Tuesday 9 September 2003

JUDGMENT DATE:
9 September 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Hidden J at 1; Greg James J at 16; Bergin J at 19

DECISION: Leave to appeal granted. Appeal dismissed.

CATCHWORDS: CRIMINAL LAW - Application for leave to appeal against sentence - 7 charges of obtaining a benefit by deception - other charges on a Form 1 - whether sentence excessive

LEGISLATION CITED: Crimes Act
Criminal Appeal Act

PARTIES :
Regina (respondent)
Michelle Royal (applicant)

FILE NUMBER(S): CCA 60193/03

COUNSEL: R McCrudden (applicant)
Elizabeth Wilkins (respondent)

SOLICITORS: P McGhee (applicant)
S E O'Connor (respondent)

LOWER COURTJURISDICTION: District Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S): 01/11/0368

LOWER COURT
JUDICIAL OFFICER : Solomon DCJ

- 5 -

60193/03

HIDDEN J
GREG JAMES J
BERGIN J

Regina v Michelle Royal

Judgment

1 HIDDEN J: The applicant, Michelle Marie Royal, pleaded guilty in the District Court to seven counts of obtaining a benefit by deception, an offence under s178BA of the Crimes Act, carrying a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment. She also asked the sentencing judge to take into account, in sentencing on the first of those charges, six further charges on a Form 1, they being two charges of obtaining a valuable thing by deception, also an offence under s178BA, two charges of goods in custody and two charges of possessing prohibited drugs. On each of the charges in the indictment his Honour passed concurrent terms of imprisonment of three years and three months with a non-parole period of two years and one month. His Honour did so after allowing a discount of some twenty per cent for the applicant’s pleas of guilty. She seeks leave to appeal against those sentences.

2 It is unnecessary to recite the facts in any detail. It is sufficient to set out his Honour’s brief summary of them in his remarks on sentence.

In short the prisoner together with two co-offenders, Louis Sukkar and John Choy, embarked upon a sophisticated system of criminal activity in order to defraud banks of large amounts of money. Stolen cheques were deposited into banking accounts which were created in fictitious names. The scheme, on the facts presented to me, was set up by Louis Sukkar and John Choy. The role the prisoner had in the scheme was to present herself at various banking organisations and to set up banking accounts using false identification both for herself and for the companies which were nominated as the account holders. In a period of time from 2 September 1999 until approximately 24 September 1999 the sum of $348,000 was fraudulently withdrawn from the banks. The sum of $285,190.72 has not been recovered.

….

The prisoner in a record of interview indicated that she was to receive ten per cent of the proceeds of the crimes. The prisoner indicated that she in fact received some $25,000 of which she spent $5,000.

3 It seems that the men Louis Sukkar and John…

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 Royal

Details

AGLC: R v Royal [2003] NSWCCA 260
Case: [2003] NSWCCA 260
Decision Date: 9 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, a defendant in a criminal case, was found guilty on seven charges of obtaining a benefit by deception and various other charges. The appellant applied for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed, arguing that the sentence was excessive in the circumstances of the case. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was excessive. The court had to consider the nature and extent of the appellant's criminal conduct, the degree of culpability, and the appropriate punishment for the offences committed. The court also had to consider whether the sentence was disproportionate to the appellant's criminal conduct and whether there were any mitigating or aggravating factors that should be taken into account.

The court held that the sentence imposed was not excessive. The court found that the appellant had committed serious criminal offences that involved a high degree of planning and deception, and that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences. The court also noted that the appellant had no prior criminal record and had shown remorse for his actions. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the appellant's criminal conduct and did not require the intervention of the High Court.

No further orders were made by the court. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the lower court was upheld.

Orders