R v Squire - [2008] QCA 19

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Squire [2008] QCA 19

PARTIES:

R
v
SQUIRE, Suzanne Elizabeth
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 186 of 2007
DC No 233 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application
Miscellaneous Application – Criminal

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Maroochydore

DELIVERED ON:

15 February 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 January 2008

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Muir JA and Mackenzie J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Application to adduce evidence refused
2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – FURTHER EVIDENCE – where applicant made application to adduce evidence – where, two days after sentence was passed, applicant's solicitor at trial received letter regarding the applicant attending counselling– whether, if letter was in evidence at sentence, a different sentence was warranted at law

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – where applicant pleaded guilty to obtaining and attempting to obtain a financial advantage from the Health Insurance Commission – where applicant fraudulently received over $45,000 in Medicare benefits – where applicant effectively sentenced to 30 months imprisonment with an order that she be released after 9 months upon entering a recognisance of $2,500 upon condition that she be of good behaviour for 3 years – where applicant claimed to be drug addicted and desperate for money for drugs at the time of the offences – whether trial judge erred in not accepting these claims – where applicant claimed incarceration was causing her health to deteriorate – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 11.1(1), s 134.2(1)

R v Holdsworth [1993] QCA 242; CA No 94 of 1993, 22 June 1993, considered
R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593, applied

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
P G Huygens for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

McMURDO P: The applicant Ms Squire pleaded guilty on 6 August 2007 to one count of obtaining and one count of attempting to obtain a financial advantage from the Health Insurance Commission. She was sentenced on the first count to 30 months imprisonment and on the second count to 18 months imprisonment, with an order that she be released after nine months upon entering into a recognisance in the amount of $2,500 on condition that she be of good behaviour for three years. She was also ordered to pay reparation of $45,685.95. She applies for leave to appeal against her sentence contending that it was manifestly excessive and that the judge erred in not taking mitigating circumstances into account. She also applies to adduce evidence on appeal that was not before the sentencing court.

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 Squire

Details

AGLC: R v Squire [2008] QCA 19
Case: [2008] QCA 19
Decision Date: 15 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by a woman convicted of fraud against the Health Insurance Commission. The applicant pleaded guilty to obtaining and attempting to obtain a financial advantage by fraudulent means, resulting in her receiving over $45,000 in Medicare benefits. The trial judge sentenced her to 30 months imprisonment, with a release order after 9 months upon entering a recognisance of $2,500 with a condition for good behaviour for 3 years. The applicant sought to adduce further evidence that she had attended counselling, which she claimed was relevant to her drug addiction and desperation for money at the time of the offences. She also argued that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive due to her deteriorating health in custody.

The legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge erred in not accepting the applicant's claims of drug addiction and desperation for money, and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that if the evidence of counselling had been before the trial judge at the time of sentencing, a different sentence would have been warranted. The respondent submitted that the applicant had not demonstrated any error in the trial judge's consideration of her personal circumstances.

The court found that the applicant had not established a sufficient basis to permit the introduction of further evidence. The court held that the trial judge had properly considered the applicant's personal circumstances, including her claims of drug addiction and desperation for money, and had not erred in sentencing. The court further found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds for leave to appeal against the sentence. The application to adduce evidence and the application for leave to appeal against sentence were both refused.

The court ordered that the application to adduce evidence be refused and that the application for leave to appeal against sentence be refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application to adduce evidence refused

2. 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.

CITATION:	R v Squire [2008] QCA 19
PARTIES:	R v SQUIRE, Suzanne Elizabeth (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 186 of 2007 DC No 233 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application Miscellaneous Application – Criminal
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Maroochydore
DELIVERED ON:	15 February 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	30 January 2008
JUDGES:	McMurdo P, Muir JA and Mackenzie J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDER:	1. Application to adduce evidence refused 2. Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL – PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – POWERS OF COURT – FURTHER EVIDENCE – where applicant made application to adduce evidence – where, two days after sentence was passed, applicant's solicitor at trial received letter regarding the applicant attending counselling– whether, if letter was in evidence at sentence, a different sentence was warranted at law CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – where applicant pleaded guilty to obtaining and attempting to obtain a financial advantage from the Health Insurance Commission – where applicant fraudulently received over $45,000 in Medicare benefits – where applicant effectively sentenced to 30 months imprisonment with an order that she be released after 9 months upon entering a recognisance of $2,500 upon condition that she be of good behaviour for 3 years – where applicant claimed to be drug addicted and desperate for money for drugs at the time of the offences – whether trial judge erred in not accepting these claims – where applicant claimed incarceration was causing her health to deteriorate – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), s 11.1(1), s 134.2(1) R v Holdsworth [1993] QCA 242; CA No 94 of 1993, 22 June 1993, considered R v Maniadis [1997] 1 Qd R 593, applied
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf P G Huygens for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent