R v Stroia - [2011] QCA 317

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Stroia [2011] QCA 317

PARTIES:

R
v
STROIA, Alexandru
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 168 of 2011
DC No 1011 of 2011

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

8 November 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

18 October 2011

JUDGES:

Margaret McMurdo P, Chesterman JA and Margaret Wilson AJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to an ex officio indictment containing six counts of possessing a thing with intent to dishonestly obtain or deal in personal financial information; two counts of wilful damage; and one count of dealing in the proceeds of crime where the value of the money was $50,000 or more – where the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months – where his co-accused pleaded guilty to related offences in a separate 11 count indictment and was sentenced to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 months – where the applicant argued the sentencing judge placed insufficient weight on mitigating factors, including that he pleaded guilty at an early time to an ex officio indictment, cooperated with authorities and had good prospects of rehabilitation – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Du Randt v R [2008] NSWCCA 121, considered
R v Darot, Unreported, District Court Queensland, Noud DCJ, 2 March 2011, considered
R v Iftimia, Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Boddice J, 7 December 2010, considered
R v Sea [2006] QCA 421, considered
Tomov v The Queen [2011] WASCA 189, considered

COUNSEL:

M Byrne QC for the applicant
P C Floyd for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Jacobson Mahony Lawyers for the applicant
Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent

MARGARET McMURDO P: The applicant, Alexandru Stroia, pleaded guilty to an ex officio indictment in the Brisbane District Court on 3 June 2011 containing six counts of possessing a thing with intent to dishonestly obtain or deal in personal financial information (counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 8); two counts of wilful damage (counts 2 and 7); and one count of dealing in the proceeds of crime where the value of the money was $50,000 or more (count 9). His co-offender, Mircea Flutur, pleaded guilty to related offences in a separate 11 count indictment. Stroia was sentenced on count 9, to reflect the totality of his offending, to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months; 304 days of pre-sentence custody was declared as time served under the sentence. Flutur was sentenced on count 11 (dealing in the proceeds of crime where the value of the money was $100,000 or more), to reflect the totality of his offending, to…

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 Stroia

Details

AGLC: R v Stroia [2011] QCA 317
Case: [2011] QCA 317
Decision Date: 8 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Stroia, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal in relation to a series of charges, including possession of personal financial information with intent, wilful damage, and dealing in the proceeds of crime. Stroia had pleaded guilty to six counts of possessing personal financial information with intent, two counts of wilful damage, and one count of dealing in the proceeds of crime where the value of the money was $50,000 or more. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months. Stroia's co-accused, who pleaded guilty to related offences in a separate indictment, was sentenced to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 months. Stroia argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, claiming the sentencing judge failed to sufficiently consider mitigating factors, such as his early guilty plea, cooperation with authorities, and good prospects of rehabilitation.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal was manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court had to consider the seriousness of the crimes, the need for general and specific deterrence, and the personal circumstances of the offender, including any mitigating factors. The court had to balance these considerations to determine whether the sentence was appropriate or if there was sufficient ground for interference. The court also had to assess whether the sentence was so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the court or whether it fell outside the range of sentences that a reasonably competent court could have imposed.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the mitigating factors but emphasised the seriousness of the crimes, which involved a breach of trust and significant financial harm. The court also considered the need for general and specific deterrence, noting the potential for significant harm if such crimes were to be repeated. The court concluded that the sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for the crimes committed. Therefore, the court refused the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.

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.

CITATION:	R v Stroia [2011] QCA 317
PARTIES:	R v STROIA, Alexandru (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 168 of 2011 DC No 1011 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	8 November 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	18 October 2011
JUDGES:	Margaret McMurdo P, Chesterman JA and Margaret Wilson AJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL –APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant pleaded guilty to an ex officio indictment containing six counts of possessing a thing with intent to dishonestly obtain or deal in personal financial information; two counts of wilful damage; and one count of dealing in the proceeds of crime where the value of the money was $50,000 or more – where the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 months – where his co-accused pleaded guilty to related offences in a separate 11 count indictment and was sentenced to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 months – where the applicant argued the sentencing judge placed insufficient weight on mitigating factors, including that he pleaded guilty at an early time to an ex officio indictment, cooperated with authorities and had good prospects of rehabilitation – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Du Randt v R [2008] NSWCCA 121, considered R v Darot, Unreported, District Court Queensland, Noud DCJ, 2 March 2011, considered R v Iftimia, Unreported, Supreme Court of Queensland, Boddice J, 7 December 2010, considered R v Sea [2006] QCA 421, considered Tomov v The Queen [2011] WASCA 189, considered
COUNSEL:	M Byrne QC for the applicant P C Floyd for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Jacobson Mahony Lawyers for the applicant Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent