R v Slattery - [2008] VSC 81

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1616 of 2007

THE QUEEN

DANIEL SYDNEY SLATTERY

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 March 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 March 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Slattery (Sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 81

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Plea of guilty – Solicitor – Theft – Having a deficiency in a trust account – False accounting – Failing to deposit trust monies – Attempting to pervert the course of justice.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle QC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	Mr L. Carter	Rudstein Kron Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Daniel Sydney Slattery, you have pleaded guilty to three counts of theft; seven counts of having a deficiency in a trust account; four counts of false accounting; three counts of failing to deposit trust monies; and three counts of attempting to pervert the course of justice. These offences took place between 24 August 2000 and 13 August 2002. I propose to impose on you a total effective sentence of eighteen months’ imprisonment to be wholly suspended for a period of two years.

At the time of these offences you were a solicitor and the holder of a practising certificate under which you were authorised to receive trust money. You conducted a practice under the name of Daniel S. Slattery and Associates, at Level 1, No. 2 Burwood Highway, Burwood in Victoria until September 2002.

In that practice you had a number of bank accounts including your general trust account, an account known as the “Gilchrist account”, an account known as the “Maxima residual account”, a long service leave account, and a business account. Although the presentment contains 20 counts (about which your counsel complained), those counts can be divided into seven groups of offences.

The means by which you gained use of some funds was by depositing them to the Gilchrist account and the Maxima residual account, and then withdrawing some amounts to your benefit. On the other hand, your counsel relies on the fact that the majority of the funds quickly found their way into the trust account or to the client concerned.

Counts 1 to 8

In February 1997 Ms Angela Parsons commenced family law proceedings against her husband, Mr Robert Parsons. You were her solicitor. On 10 December 1997 proceedings in relation to the family’s financial arrangements were listed for hearing at 2.25 pm. Shortly before the matter was due to be heard, Mr Parsons murdered Ms Parsons in the vicinity of the Family Court at Dandenong. Mr Parsons was sentenced for that murder by Cummins J on 24 May 1999 to life imprisonment, with a minimum term of 25 years to be served before eligibility for parole. That case had a dramatic effect on you and played, in part, a causative role in the commission of these offences.

Ms Joanna Collins was the sister of Ms…

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 Slattery

Details

AGLC: R v Slattery [2008] VSC 81
Case: [2008] VSC 81
Decision Date: 20 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved a criminal appeal against sentence by a respondent who had pleaded guilty to various charges, including theft, false accounting, and attempting to pervert the course of justice. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appellant, Slattery, was a solicitor who had engaged in a series of unlawful activities that resulted in a deficiency in his trust account. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for the appellant's crimes and assess whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the appellant's crimes, given that he had pleaded guilty and there was no dispute about the facts. The court had to consider the seriousness of the offences, the appellant's culpability, and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court also had to assess whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate, given the relevant sentencing principles and the appellant's personal circumstances.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the gravity of the appellant's crimes, noting that he had abused his position of trust as a solicitor and engaged in a prolonged course of dishonest conduct. The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate, given the seriousness of the offences and the need to deter similar conduct in the future. The court noted that the appellant had shown some remorse and had cooperated with the investigation, but these factors were outweighed by the gravity of his crimes. The court concluded that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and did not need to be varied.

The court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge, with no variation. The appellant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. The court also ordered that the appellant be disqualified from practising as a solicitor for a period of ten years.

Orders