R v Steinmann - [2013] QCA 174

[2013] QCA 174

COURT OF APPEAL

HOLMES JA
GOTTERSON JA
DOUGLAS J

CA No 14 of 2013
DC No 66 of 2012

THE QUEEN

STEINMANN, Susanne Faye Applicant

BRISBANE

WEDNESDAY, 10 JULY 2013

JUDGMENT

HOLMES JA: I shall ask Douglas J to deliver his reasons first.

DOUGLAS J: Ms Steinmann pleaded guilty to one count of attempted fraud, to the value of $30,000 or more, on 20 December 2012, and was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with a fixed parole release date of 20 March 2013. She has applied for leave to appeal against her sentence on the ground that it was manifestly excessive.

In June 2009, she applied for a loan from the Bank of Queensland, to be secured by a mortgage over property owned by her. That property was already subject to an existing mortgage with the National Australia Bank. The Bank of Queensland indicated that it was willing to approve a loan of 80 per cent of the value of the property, an amount of $414,000.

In order to advance her application, she provided the Bank of Queensland with two forged Australian Tax Office notices of assessment for the financial years ending 2007 and 2008. Those forged documents indicated that her taxable income in 2007 was $248,000, and in 2008, $301,000. The true position was that her taxable income in 2007 was nil, and in 2008, $13,000. Had the loan been successful, the money would have paid out the existing mortgage, leaving the Applicant with an amount of about $100,000. The Bank of Queensland would have then held a mortgage over the Applicant’s property.

The facts revealed to the learned sentencing Judge were that the Applicant and a friend had devised the plan to extract money from the bank. Before the loan was advanced, the friend went to the bank and revealed that the notices of assessment were false. The Applicant initially denied knowing about the forged documents to police, and made partial admissions in a second interview. The plea was treated as a timely one. The Applicant had some older previous convictions for offences of dishonesty, including convictions on 18 counts of forgery and uttering in 1978 and a conviction of attempted false pretences and possessing property suspected of being stolen in 1985.

There were further offences of false pretences, and receiving, in 1985, and convictions in 2008 and 2011 of common assault, and assault occasioning bodily harm. She had never previously been sentenced to a term of imprisonment. The Applicant was well regarded, and supported by her partner and daughter, and had a reference from her superior in her job speaking well of her, and her involvement in charitable fundraising events. She was a mature woman, aged 53 at the time of the offence and 57 when sentenced. In concluding that a period of actual custody should be imposed, the learned sentencing Judge referred to the matter as a very serious example of dishonesty where a deterrent sentence was warranted to deter the Applicant…

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 Steinmann

Details

AGLC: R v Steinmann [2013] QCA 174
Case: [2013] QCA 174
Decision Date: 10 JULY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Steinmann, the applicant, Ms Steinmann, was convicted of attempted fraud and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment with a fixed parole release date. She appealed against her sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The court was required to determine whether the sentence was appropriate, considering factors such as the seriousness of the offence, Ms Steinmann's criminal history, and the principle that imprisonment should only be imposed as a last resort. The court considered relevant case law and the nature of the offence, which involved providing false documents to secure a loan from a bank. Ms Steinmann had a history of similar offences, which the court deemed relevant to the severity of the sentence. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court emphasised that the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence justified the custodial sentence. The appeal was ultimately unsuccessful, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders