R v Ruha, Ruha & Harris; ex parte

Link copied
Case Copied 54 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Ruha, Ruha & Harris; ex parte Cth DPP [2010] QCA 10
PARTIES:

R
v
RUHA, Roland Shane
(respondent)

R
v
RUHA, Wikitoria Hakete
(respondent)

R
v
HARRIS, Georgina May
(respondent)
EX PARTE COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
(appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 246 of 2009
CA No 249 of 2009
CA No 248 of 2009
DC No 2699 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Appeal by Cth DPP

ORIGINATING COURT:


District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 February 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

2 December 2009

JUDGES:

Keane and Fraser JJA and Atkinson J
Judgment of the Court
ORDERS:

R v RUHA, Roland Shane (CA No 246 of 09):

1.   Appeal against sentence allowed.

2.   Vary the order for release on recognizance by substituting the period of 18 months imprisonment for the period of 12 months imprisonment.

3.   Otherwise confirm the sentence and orders.

R v RUHA, Wikitoria Hakete (CA No 249 of 09):

1.   Appeal against sentence allowed.

2.   Vary the order for release on recognizance by substituting the period of 18 months imprisonment for the period of 12 months imprisonment.

3.   Otherwise confirm the sentence and orders.

R v HARRIS, Georgina May (CA No 248 of 09):

1.   Appeal against sentence allowed.

2.   Vary the order for release on recognizance by substituting the period of 12 months imprisonment for the period of 6 months imprisonment.

3.   Otherwise confirm the sentence and orders.
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the respondents pleaded guilty to an offence against s 135.4(3) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) and conspired to dishonestly cause a loss to a Commonwealth entity – where two respondents were sentenced to three years imprisonment to be released after 12 months upon entering into a recognizance – where the third respondent was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment to be released after serving six months upon entering into a recognizance – where each of the respondents were ordered to pay an amount to the Commissioner of Taxation and held joint and severally liable – where the Cth DPP appealed against the sentenced imposed – where the Cth DPP submitted that the period to be served before release was inadequate – whether the sentence is rendered inadequate by undue leniency in the pre-sentence period – whether the sentencing judge failed to have regard to sentencing principles – whether the sentencing judge gave sufficient weight to the circumstances of the case – whether the sentencing judge gave too much weight to the mitigating factors – whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a manifestly inadequate sentence

Criminal Code 1995 (Cth), s 135.4(3)
Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), s 16A, s 17A(1), s 19AA, s 19AB, s 19AC, s 19AF(1), s 19AL, s 20(1)(a), s 20(1)(b), s 20A, s 21E
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 669A

Assafiri v R [2007] NSWCCA 159, cited
Bernier…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Ruha, Ruha & Harris; ex parte 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
[2010] QCA 10
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Ruha and Harris, pleaded guilty to conspiring to dishonestly cause a loss to a Commonwealth entity, in breach of section 135.4(3) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth). Following their guilty pleas, Ruha and Harris were sentenced to three years imprisonment, with the first 12 months to be served before release upon entering into a recognizance. The third respondent was sentenced to 20 months imprisonment, with the first six months to be served before release upon entering into a recognizance. All respondents were ordered to pay an amount to the Commissioner of Taxation and were held jointly and severally liable. The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth DPP) appealed the sentences imposed, arguing that the period to be served before release was inadequate and that the sentences were rendered inadequate by undue leniency.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was rendered inadequate by undue leniency in the pre-sentence period, whether the sentencing judge failed to have regard to sentencing principles, whether the sentencing judge gave sufficient weight to the circumstances of the case, whether the sentencing judge gave too much weight to the mitigating factors, and whether the sentencing judge erred in imposing a manifestly inadequate sentence. The court considered the submissions of the Cth DPP and the arguments of the respondents, focusing on the adequacy of the pre-sentence period and the overall proportionality of the sentences.

The court found that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence, leading to the conclusion that the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate. The court held that the sentencing judge failed to have regard to the principles of sentencing and erred in imposing a manifestly inadequate sentence. The court allowed the appeal against the sentence and varied the order for release on recognizance by substituting the period of 18 months imprisonment for the period of 12 months imprisonment for Ruha, and the period of 12 months imprisonment for the period of 6 months imprisonment for Harris. The court otherwise confirmed the sentence and orders.

The orders of the court were to allow the appeal against the sentence, vary the order for release on recognizance by substituting the period of 18 months imprisonment for the period of 12 months imprisonment for Ruha and the period of 12 months imprisonment for the period of 6 months imprisonment for Harris, and otherwise confirm the sentence and orders.

Orders

Orders of the court

R v RUHA, Roland Shane (CA No 246 of 09):

1. Appeal against sentence allowed.

2. Vary the order for release on recognizance by substituting the period of 18 months imprisonment for the period of 12 months imprisonment.

3. Otherwise confirm the sentence and orders.

R v RUHA, Wikitoria Hakete (CA No 249 of 09):

1. Appeal against sentence allowed.

2. Vary the order for release on recognizance by substituting the period of 18 months imprisonment for the period of 12 months imprisonment.

3. Otherwise confirm the sentence and orders.

R v HARRIS, Georgina May (CA No 248 of 09):

1. Appeal against sentence allowed.

2. Vary the order for release on recognizance by substituting the period of 12 months imprisonment for the period of 6 months imprisonment.

3. Otherwise confirm the sentence and orders.

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.