R v Tansey - [2012] VSC 221

THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted
AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION
S CR 2011 0064

THE QUEEN

v

DAVID TANSEY

---

JUDGE:

ALMOND J

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

26 March 2012

DATE OF SENTENCE:

31 May 2012

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

R v Tansey

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2012] VSC 221

Amended 4 June 2012

---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Theft – 25 charges of theft by a solicitor from clients – Plea of guilty – Delay – Previous good character – Compensation – Sentence of four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months.
---

APPEARANCES:
Counsel Solicitors

For the Crown Mr J Champion SC and
Ms A Bhai Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

For the Accused Mr P Chadwick SC Victoria Legal Aid

For the Legal Services Board Mr S Senathirajah Solicitor Legal Services Board
HIS HONOUR:
1 David Michael Tansey, you have pleaded guilty to 25 charges of theft. The offences involved 44 separate transactions and a total amount of $1,990,081.21 stolen from 11 separate clients over a period of 4 ½ years from 13 July 1999 to 14 January 2004. At the time the offences were committed you were a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of Victoria and held a Victorian Practising Certificate. You were initially a partner of Birch Ross & Barlow and then became a sole practitioner, practising under the name Lynch & McDonald.

2 During the relevant period you were between 46 and 50 years old; you were a director of Saul Nominees Pty Ltd (the trustee of your family trust), Shuckers Pty Ltd (the corporate entity behind a restaurant business operated by your wife) and South Eastern Secure Investments Limited (“SESI”) which is a financial institution.

3 An investigation commenced by the Law Institute of Victoria in March 2004 revealed that you had applied certain funds of clients of Birch Ross & Barlow or Lynch & McDonald into accounts held with SESI and without entitlement or authority, transferred funds from those accounts directly or indirectly to the benefit of yourself or family members.

4 I set out the details of your offences as follows:

Charges 1 & 2

5 Ms Thora Nixon was a client of Lynch & McDonald. You had the conduct of her financial affairs. Her funds were held in an SESI investment account in the name of “L & M TST for Nixon T”.

6 On 13 July 1999, you stole $70,000 by drawing a cheque on that account (Charge 1). You used the money to purchase shares in the name of Saul Nominees and also to deposit money into the accounts of Saul Nominees. Between 9 February and 14 October 2003, in four separate transactions, you stole a further $87,919 from the account (Charge 2). You used this money to pay rent on a property in Black Rock and deposited money into the accounts of Lynch & McDonald.

7 On 3 April 2002, you restored $1,738.05 to the account and…

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 Tansey

Details

AGLC: R v Tansey [2012] VSC 221
Case: [2012] VSC 221
Decision Date: 31 May 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tansey involved a solicitor who had pleaded guilty to 25 charges of theft from his clients. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the offences, which involved the defendant stealing a significant sum of money over a period of time. The High Court of Australia was responsible for delivering the final judgement in this case.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for a solicitor who had committed multiple thefts from his clients over an extended period. Factors considered by the court included the seriousness of the offences, the delay in bringing the matter to court, the defendant's previous good character, and the amount of compensation paid to the victims. The court also had to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation when determining the sentence.

The court found that the offences were serious, with the defendant betraying the trust of his clients and causing significant financial harm. The delay in bringing the matter to court was also a factor that weighed against the defendant. However, the court acknowledged the defendant's previous good character and the compensation paid to the victims as mitigating factors. Ultimately, the court determined that a sentence of four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months was appropriate. This sentence balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the need to provide the defendant with an opportunity for rehabilitation.

The court's final order was that the defendant be sentenced to four years imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months. The court also ordered that the defendant pay compensation to his victims in the amount of $120,000. The defendant was also disbarred from practicing as a solicitor.

Orders