R v Singleton; R v Singleton - [2019] QCA 302

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Singleton; R v Singleton [2019] QCA 302

PARTIES:

R
v
SINGLETON, Justin Ian
(applicant)

R
v
SINGLETON, Ian Raymond
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 83 of 2019
CA No 84 of 2019
DC No 518 of 2018

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 26 March 2019 (Chowdhury DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

20 December 2019

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

3 June 2019

JUDGES:

Fraser and Philippides JJA and Lyons SJA

ORDER:

The applications for leave to appeal against sentence are refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicants were each convicted on pleas of guilty to two counts of fraud – where the applicants were sentenced to 20 months and two years imprisonment respectively, suspended after four months, for an operational period of two years – where the applicants issued fraudulent certificates that certified that their customers had completed required training and, upon presentation, allowed their customers to obtain motorcycle licences from the Department of Transport and Main Roads – where the applicants contended that their sentences were manifestly excessive because, in passing sentence, the sentencing judge applied considerations commensurate to cases of official corruption as opposed to fraud or, in the alternative, because the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to matters in mitigation – whether the sentences are manifestly excessive

R v Brady, Brindley and Shale[2005] QCA 135, considered
R v Gmeinder[2001] QCA 354, considered
R v Moxon[2015] QCA 65, considered
R v Sadeed[2004] QCA 32, considered

COUNSEL:

A S McDougall for the applicants
E L Kelso for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Hannay Lawyers for the applicants
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Philippides JA and the order proposed by her Honour.
PHILIPPIDES JA: On 26 March 2019, Ian Singleton and his son Justin Singleton, were sentenced on their pleas to two counts of fraud pursuant to s 408C(1)B of the Criminal Code. They were sentenced to two years imprisonment and 20 months respectively, with four months required to be served. Each sentence was operational for a two year period.
They seek leave to appeal against those sentences on the grounds that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive in that in imposing the sentences, the sentencing judge applied considerations commensurate to cases of official corruption as opposed to fraud. In the alternate, the sentencing judge did not apply sufficient weight to matters in mitigation. It was contended that lesser sentences in the vicinity of nine to 12 months fully suspended should have been imposed.
Background
Ian Singleton, assisted by his son, operated a business called “Stay Alive Defensive Motorcycle Training Academy” from premises at Hein Road, Buccan. They were accredited rider trainers by the Department of Transport and Main Roads and…

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 Singleton; R v Singleton

Details

AGLC: R v Singleton; R v Singleton [2019] QCA 302
Case: [2019] QCA 302
Decision Date: 20 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Ian Singleton and Justin Singleton, have appealed against their sentences on the grounds that they were manifestly excessive. They were convicted on pleas of guilty to two counts of fraud. The court sentenced Ian Singleton to 20 months imprisonment, suspended after four months, for an operational period of two years, and Justin Singleton to two years imprisonment, also suspended after four months, for an operational period of two years. They issued fraudulent certificates that certified their customers had completed required training and, upon presentation, allowed their customers to obtain motorcycle licenses from the Department of Transport and Main Roads. The applicants contend that the sentences were manifestly excessive because the sentencing judge applied considerations commensurate to cases of official corruption as opposed to fraud or, in the alternative, because the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to matters in mitigation.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed on the applicants were manifestly excessive. The applicants submitted that their sentences were excessive because the sentencing judge applied considerations commensurate to cases of official corruption as opposed to fraud or, in the alternative, because the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to matters in mitigation. The court was required to consider whether the sentences were manifestly excessive in light of the applicants' arguments.

The court found that the applicants' sentences were not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the amount of money obtained was relatively modest, but the offending was serious in that it undermined the integrity of the motorcycle training system and posed a risk to road users. The sentencing judge had regard to the early pleas entered and the extraordinary number of references tendered for both applicants, which highlighted that apart from the offending before the court, how productive, law-abiding, and useful the applicants had been to the community. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the seriousness of the offending with the mitigating factors.

The applications for leave to appeal against sentence are refused. The court found that the sentences imposed on the applicants were not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the seriousness of the offending with the mitigating factors. The sentences remain in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applications for leave to appeal against sentence are refused.

Background

Background to the litigation

They seek leave to appeal against those sentences on the grounds that the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive in that in imposing the sentences, the sentencing judge applied considerations commensurate to cases of official corruption as opposed to fraud. In the alternate, the sentencing judge did not apply sufficient weight to matters in mitigation. It was contended that lesser sentences in the vicinity of nine to 12 months fully suspended should have been imposed.Background Ian Singleton, assisted by his son, operated a business called “Stay Alive Defensive Motorcycle Training Academy” from premises at Hein Road, Buccan. They were accredited rider trainers by the Department of Transport and Main Roads and as such were both in a position to make decisions on who should or should not be eligible to obtain a motorcycle licence. In the course of the business they issued certificates to customers to submit to the Department of Transport and Main Roads. These certificates confirmed the customer had completed the required practical and theoretical requirements to obtain a motorcycle licence. They collected the fees for providing this training, without requiring customers to complete it. Over 20 months, 29 certificates were issued, and $8,100 for fees was obtained. Twenty four of the customers who received, and then lodged, those certificates were subsequently charged with fraud by Queensland Police. Between 9 September 2014 and 31 May 2016, Ian Singleton received payments from 12 persons who were found not to have completed the required training and assessment to obtain a Q-Ride Competency Declaration Certificate. Between 3 March 2015 and 31 May 2016, Justin Singleton received payment from 17 persons who were found not to have completed the required training and assessment to obtain a Q-Ride Competency Declaration Certificate. The quantum from the fraud actually received by Ian Singleton was $3,400 and the quantum from the fraud actually received by Justin Singleton was $4,700. They were jointly liable for the fraud of the other by their roles in the business.Sentencing remarks In sentencing the applicants, his Honour described the amount of money obtained as “relatively modest”. However, the offending was serious in that it undermined the integrity of the motorcycle training system and, consequently, posed a risk to road users of having drivers on the public roads without the necessary training. His Honour accepted that some of those who obtained the certificates may have been experienced riders themselves but that, in any event, the system relied on outside agencies to provide the training and there was a significant risk to the public from the scheme. The offending extended over a significant period of time and came to an end as a result of police investigation and the applicants’ arrests. In the applicants’ favour, the sentencing judge had regard to the early pleas entered and to the “extraordinary number of references” tendered for both applicants which highlighted that apart from the offending before the Court, how “productive and law abiding and useful [the applicants] had been to the community”.

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 Singleton; R v Singleton [2019] QCA 302
PARTIES:	R v SINGLETON, Justin Ian (applicant) R v SINGLETON, Ian Raymond (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 83 of 2019 CA No 84 of 2019 DC No 518 of 2018
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 26 March 2019 (Chowdhury DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	20 December 2019
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	3 June 2019
JUDGES:	Fraser and Philippides JJA and Lyons SJA
ORDER:	The applications for leave to appeal against sentence are refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicants were each convicted on pleas of guilty to two counts of fraud – where the applicants were sentenced to 20 months and two years imprisonment respectively, suspended after four months, for an operational period of two years – where the applicants issued fraudulent certificates that certified that their customers had completed required training and, upon presentation, allowed their customers to obtain motorcycle licences from the Department of Transport and Main Roads – where the applicants contended that their sentences were manifestly excessive because, in passing sentence, the sentencing judge applied considerations commensurate to cases of official corruption as opposed to fraud or, in the alternative, because the sentencing judge did not give sufficient weight to matters in mitigation – whether the sentences are manifestly excessive R v Brady, Brindley and Shale[2005] QCA 135, considered R v Gmeinder[2001] QCA 354, considered R v Moxon[2015] QCA 65, considered R v Sadeed[2004] QCA 32, considered
COUNSEL:	A S McDougall for the applicants E L Kelso for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Hannay Lawyers for the applicants Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent