R v Subloo - [2023] QCA 101

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Subloo [2023] QCA 101

PARTIES:

R
v
SUBLOO, Darryl James
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 217 of 2022
DC No 1335 of 2022
DC No 1374 of 2022

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 5 September 2022 (Chief Judge Devereaux SC)

DELIVERED ON:

Date of Order: 9 May 2023
Date of Publication of Reasons: 16 May 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9 May 2023

JUDGES:

Boddice JA and Mitchell AJA and Davis J

ORDER:

Date of Order: 12 May 2023

Leave to appeal is 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 fraud by dishonestly gaining a pecuniary interest for himself of a value of $30,000 or more, contrary to s 408C(1)(d) of the Criminal Code and two other fraud offences – where the applicant was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment – where the sentence was suspended for an operational period of five years after the applicant had served 15 months’ imprisonment – where the applicant had no material criminal history – where the applicant demonstrated rehabilitation before sentencing – where, in 2009, the applicant was managing a business with more than 150 staff which was experiencing financial difficulty – where the business was the subject of a burglary in January 2009 in which some equipment was stolen – where the applicant inflated the value of the insurance claim by $142,000 – where the applicant used the money to keep the business afloat – where the sentence contended for on appeal was a reduction of 6 months from the head sentence, and 3 months of the period to be served before suspension – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Criminal Code (Qld), s 408C(1)(d)

Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, cited
Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (2017) 262 CLR 428; [2017] HCA 41, cited
Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29, cited
Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57, cited
R v Jensen; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[1998] QCA 275, cited
R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48, cited
R v McMahon[2013] QCA 240, cited
R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited
R v Smallwood[2014] QCA 70, cited

COUNSEL:

D M Caruana for the applicant
R J Marks for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Phillips Crawford Lawyers for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE COURT: At the conclusion of the hearing of this application for leave 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 Subloo

Details

AGLC: R v Subloo [2023] QCA 101
Case: [2023] QCA 101
Decision Date: 16 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Subloo, appealed against his sentence for fraud, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. He had pleaded guilty to dishonestly gaining a pecuniary interest of $30,000 or more, and two other fraud offences. The court imposed a sentence of 4 years and 6 months' imprisonment, suspended after the appellant had served 15 months. The appellant had no significant criminal history and had shown signs of rehabilitation prior to sentencing.

The court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate given his lack of criminal history and his efforts at rehabilitation. The court assessed the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's personal circumstances, and the principles of sentencing. The court examined the appellant's actions, which involved inflating an insurance claim by $142,000 to keep his struggling business afloat. The court also considered the impact of the suspension period on the appellant's ability to rehabilitate and reintegrate into society.

The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court considered the appellant's actions to be serious and deliberate, but also took into account the mitigating factors presented. The court found that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and provided an opportunity for the appellant to rehabilitate. The court found no grounds for reducing the sentence, and therefore dismissed the appeal.

No further orders were made.

Orders

Orders of the court

Date of Order: 12 May 2023

Leave to appeal is 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 Subloo [2023] QCA 101
PARTIES:	R v SUBLOO, Darryl James (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 217 of 2022 DC No 1335 of 2022 DC No 1374 of 2022
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 5 September 2022 (Chief Judge Devereaux SC)
DELIVERED ON:	Date of Order: 9 May 2023 Date of Publication of Reasons: 16 May 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9 May 2023
JUDGES:	Boddice JA and Mitchell AJA and Davis J
ORDER:	Date of Order: 12 May 2023 Leave to appeal is 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 fraud by dishonestly gaining a pecuniary interest for himself of a value of $30,000 or more, contrary to s 408C(1)(d) of the Criminal Code and two other fraud offences – where the applicant was sentenced to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment – where the sentence was suspended for an operational period of five years after the applicant had served 15 months’ imprisonment – where the applicant had no material criminal history – where the applicant demonstrated rehabilitation before sentencing – where, in 2009, the applicant was managing a business with more than 150 staff which was experiencing financial difficulty – where the business was the subject of a burglary in January 2009 in which some equipment was stolen – where the applicant inflated the value of the insurance claim by $142,000 – where the applicant used the money to keep the business afloat – where the sentence contended for on appeal was a reduction of 6 months from the head sentence, and 3 months of the period to be served before suspension – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive Criminal Code (Qld), s 408C(1)(d) Barbaro v The Queen (2014) 253 CLR 58; [2014] HCA 2, cited Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Dalgliesh (2017) 262 CLR 428; [2017] HCA 41, cited Hili v The Queen (2010) 242 CLR 520; [2010] HCA 45, cited House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40, cited Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665; [1999] HCA 29, cited Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610; [1998] HCA 57, cited R v Jensen; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld)[1998] QCA 275, cited R v Kilic (2016) 259 CLR 256; [2016] HCA 48, cited R v McMahon[2013] QCA 240, cited R v Pham (2015) 256 CLR 550; [2015] HCA 39, cited R v Smallwood[2014] QCA 70, cited
COUNSEL:	D M Caruana for the applicant R J Marks for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Phillips Crawford Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent