R v Stephens (No 2)

Case [2022] ACTSC 335

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:

R v Stephens (No 2)

Citation:

[2022] ACTSC 335

Hearing Dates:

27 May 2022, 1 December 2022

DecisionDate:

5 December 2022

Before:

Mossop J

Decision:

See [84]

Catchwords:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Judgment and punishment – sentence – intending to dishonestly cause a loss to a Commonwealth entity – obtaining a financial advantage from the Commonwealth by deception – scheduled offence of knowingly making a false or misleading statement in an application – offender with mild brain impairment and mental illnesses – loss to Commonwealth repaid – importance of general deterrence from dishonesty offences – sentences of imprisonment imposed and partially suspended

Legislation Cited:

Crimes Act 1914 (Cth), ss 16BA, 17A(1), 20(1)(a), 20(1)(b)

Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), ss 134.2(1), 135.1(3), 136.1(1)
Defence Act 1903 (Cth), s 58B
Defence Determination 2016/19

Principal Defence Determination 2005/15

Cases Cited:

Dickinson v R [2021] VSCA 50

Director of Public Prosecutions (Cth) v De La Rosa [2010] NSWCCA 194; 79 NSWLR 1
Director of Public Prosecutions v O’Neill [2015] VSCA 325; 47 VR 395
Leighton v R [2010] NSWCCA 280
R v BE [2018] ACTSC 101
R v Lovel [2007] QCA 281
R v McDougall [2021] ACTSC 102
R v McMahon [2019] ACTSC 25
R v Stephens [2021] ACTSC 308
R v Woods; R v Matthews; R v Matthews [2019] ACTSC 33
The Queen v Allred [2015] ACTSC 327

Zaky v R [2015] NSWCCA 161

Parties:

The King (Crown)

Travis David Morgan Stephens (Offender)

Representation:

Counsel

M Hassall (Crown)

M Dennis SC and J Nottle (Offender)

Solicitors

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (Crown)

Operational Legal Australia (Offender)

File Numbers:

SCC 117 of 2021

SCC 118 of 2021

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

  1. On 1 December 2021 the offender, Travis Stephens, pleaded guilty to the following offences:

1.One count of intending to dishonestly cause a loss to a Commonwealth entity, contrary to s 135.1(3) of the Criminal Code 1995 (Cth) (SCCAN 2021/163). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.

2.One count of obtaining a financial advantage by deception, contrary to s 134.2(1) of the Criminal Code (CC2020/41374). The maximum penalty is 10 years’ imprisonment.

Both pleas were entered in the Supreme Court following initial pleas of not guilty. The pleas were entered after a trial scheduled to commence on 29 November 2021 was vacated. The intention to enter a plea of guilty was indicated two weeks prior to the trial which had been estimated to run for 10 days.

  1. The offender has also requested that for the second of these offences an additional offence be taken into account on sentence pursuant to s 16BA of the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). That offence is knowingly making a false or misleading statement in an application contrary to s 136.1(1) of the Criminal Code (CAN2020/41385). The maximum penalty, had the offender been convicted of this offence, would have been 12 months’ imprisonment.

  1. The sentencing hearing commenced on 27 May 2022. At the conclusion…

Continue reading R v Stephens (No 2)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Stephens (No 2) [2022] ACTSC 335
Case
[2022] ACTSC 335
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Stephens (No 2) was heard by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, Stephens, was convicted of various offences related to dishonestly causing a loss to a Commonwealth entity and obtaining a financial advantage through deception. Stephens had a history of mild brain impairment and mental illnesses, which were taken into account during the sentencing process. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence, considering the nature of the offences, the circumstances of the offender, and the importance of general deterrence.

The legal issues before the court included the proper application of sentencing principles in cases involving serious dishonesty offences, the relevance of the offender's mental health conditions, and the significance of the Commonwealth's interest in punishing and deterring such conduct. The court also had to consider the principle of proportionality in sentencing, ensuring that the punishment fit the crime while taking into account the offender's personal circumstances.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the gravity of the offences committed by Stephens, which involved significant deception and financial loss to a Commonwealth entity. The court found that while Stephens' mental impairments and illnesses were mitigating factors, they did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions. The court emphasised the importance of general deterrence in cases of dishonesty offences against the Commonwealth. After considering all relevant factors, the court imposed sentences of imprisonment, partially suspended, with conditions including the repayment of the loss to the Commonwealth.

The court ordered that the sentences be implemented in accordance with the detailed provisions set out in the judgment, with Stephens to repay the financial loss to the Commonwealth as a condition of the suspended sentences. The court's decision highlighted the need for a balanced approach to sentencing, taking into account both the severity of the offence and the personal circumstances of the offender.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [84]

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.