SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
R v Spalding [2002] QCA 538
PARTIES:
R
v
SPALDING, Craig Samuel
(applicant)FILE NO/S:
CA No 241 of 2002
DC No 42 of 2002DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Bundaberg
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:
6 December 2002
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
6 December 2002
JUDGES:
McMurdo P, Helman and Philippides JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order madeORDER:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND
INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW
TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - where applicant pleaded guilty by ex-officio indictment to offences of misappropriation and fraud as an employee – whether sentence manifestly excessive in the circumstancesR v Banauch [1999] QCA 207; CA No 88 of 1999, June 4 1999, referred to
R v Cheers [1997] QCA 329; CA No 214 of 1997, 21 October 1997, referred to
R v Gadaloff [1999] QCA 286; CA No 24 of 1999, 24 September 1999, referred to
R v Power [1998] QCA 032; CA No 440 of 1997, 11 February 1998, referred to
R v Reischl [2000] QCA 215; CA No 81 of 2000, June 1 2000, referred to
R v Taylor [1994] QCA 574; CA No 406 of 1994, 23 November 1994, referred to
R v Wheeler & Sorrensen [2002] QCA 223; CA Nos 56 and 57 of 2002, 25 June 2002, referred toCOUNSEL:
K M McGinness for the applicant
B G Campbell for the respondentSOLICITORS:
Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty by ex officio indictment in the District Court at Bundaberg on 10 April 2002 to one count of misappropriation as an employee of property worth more than $5,000 between 1 July 1995 and 30 June 1997 and to a second count of fraud as an employee of property worth more than $5,000 between 1 July 1997 and 7 July 2001.
His sentence, which was then contested, was adjourned to allow the defence to have a psychological report prepared. On 2 July 2002, the applicant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment with a recommendation for post prison community based release after two years. The applicant contends the sentence is manifestly excessive.
The applicant was the payroll master and commercial manager for four separate companies, operating as Stewart and Sons, which employed more than 50 staff. He was responsible for paying the employees on a weekly basis.
The second offence in time occurred in this way. At the suggestion of the applicant, a desk bank computerised system was introduced for which the applicant was solely responsible. The owner of the companies, Mr Brian Stewart, was unfamiliar with computers and relied completely on the applicant who entered false records into the computer indicating that employees were owed amounts in…
Continue reading R v Spalding
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Spalding [2002] QCA 538
- Case
- [2002] QCA 538
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the nature and circumstances of the offences, and that it should be reduced. The prosecution, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate and within the range of sentences that could be imposed for such offences.
In assessing the applicant's appeal, the Court of Appeal considered the seriousness of the offences, the applicant's culpability, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also took into account the applicant's guilty plea, his remorse, and his prospects for rehabilitation. After considering all of these factors, the Court of Appeal determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that it was appropriate in the circumstances of the case. The appeal against sentence was therefore dismissed, and the applicant's sentence was upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
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.