Case Title:	R v Snowden
Citation:	[2022] ACTSC 186
Hearing Date:	22 July 2022
DecisionDate:	22 July 2022
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [59]
Catchwords:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – obtaining property by deception – theft – theft from employer – sustained course of conduct – gambling problem – no criminal history – plea of guilty – no significant discount for plea due to overwhelmingly strong case – offender willing to make repayment but unable to do so due to the operation of the Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003 (ACT) – impact of imprisonment on wife and mother – need for deterrence and denunciation – sentences of imprisonment imposed and partially suspended
Legislation Cited:	Confiscation of Criminal Assets Act 2003 (ACT), s 31 Crimes (Sentence Administration) Act 2005 (ACT) Crimes (Sentencing) Act 2005 (ACT), ss 33(1)(o), 34(2), 35(4), 35A, 36 Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), ss 308, 326
Cases Cited:	Bugmy v The Queen [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 R v CA (No 2) [2016] ACTSC 371 R v Garay (No 4) [2022] ACTSC 138 R v Mooney [2017] ACTSC 358 R v Morris [2017] ACTSC 400 R v Newby [2022] ACTCA 20 R v NQ [2017] ACTSC 317 R v QU [2019] ACTSC 155 R v Raftery [2022] ACTSC 77 R v Reid [2016] ACTSC 24 R v Toumo’ua [2017] ACTCA 9; 12 ACTLR 103
Parties:	The Queen ( Crown) Linton David Snowden ( Offender)
Representation:	Counsel M Howe ( Crown) J De Bruin ( Offender)
Solicitors ACT Director of Public Prosecutions ( Crown) Legal Aid ACT ( Offender)
File Number:	SCC 118 of 2022

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

On 6 May 2022, the offender, Linton David Snowden, pleaded guilty to the following offences in the Magistrates Court:

(a)one count of obtaining property by deception contrary to s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT). The maximum penalty is 1000 penalty units ($160,000), 10 years’ imprisonment or both; and
(b)one count of theft contrary to s 308 of the Criminal Code. The maximum penalty is $160,000, 10 years’ imprisonment or both.

These counts are rolled-up charges taking into account offending over a course of approximately three and a half years.

Facts

The facts are agreed. They are set out in great detail in the Statement of Facts which was tendered. In summary they are as follows.

From 22 September 2008 the offender was an employee of Royal Wolf Trading Australia Pty Ltd (Royal Wolf), a business specialising in hire, sales and modification of shipping containers.

His most recent position was as the Canberra branch manager. He oversaw operations in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) as well as the yards of agents in Young, Griffith, Batemans Bay and Moruya, New South Wales (NSW).

The branch manager role required him to create contracts (by computer‑generated invoice) with clients of Royal Wolf for the purchase, hire and modification of containers. This included receiving…

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 Snowden

Details

AGLC: R v Snowden [2022] ACTSC 186
Case: [2022] ACTSC 186
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Linton David Snowden, the respondent, pleaded guilty to two charges brought against him by the Crown. The first charge was obtaining property by deception in breach of s 326 of the Criminal Code 2002 (ACT), and the second was theft in breach of s 308 of the same Act. These charges related to offences committed over a course of approximately three and a half years, during which time the respondent, as an employee of Royal Wolf Trading Australia Pty Ltd, sold shipping containers purportedly on behalf of his employer but directed payment to his personal bank account. The maximum penalty for each charge was 10 years’ imprisonment or $160,000, or both. The legal issues before the Court were whether to impose a sentence of imprisonment and, if so, for how long and whether any part of that sentence should be suspended. The Court considered the objective seriousness of the offending, the subjective circumstances of the offender, and the need for general deterrence and denunciation. It also considered the offender's willingness to attempt to repay the stolen or misappropriated amount. The Court found that the Crown's case was overwhelmingly strong and that the offender's admissions to his employer prior to any charges being laid did not fall within the scope of ss 35A and 36 of the Crimes (Sentencing) Act. The offender had no prior criminal convictions. The Court decided that a sentence of imprisonment was appropriate, given the need for general deterrence and denunciation. It found that a sentence of imprisonment served by an intensive correction order would not adequately reflect this need. The Court sentenced the offender to 28 months and 15 days’ imprisonment for the charge of theft, to be suspended after 14 months, and to 40 months’ imprisonment for the charge of obtaining property by deception, to be suspended after eight months. The sentences will be cumulative, such that the offender will serve a total of 3 years and 10 months, or 46 months’ imprisonment.

Orders