R v Tarbuck - [2006] QCA 387

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Tarbuck [2006] QCA 387

PARTIES:

R
v
TARBUCK, James Harold

(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 75 of 2006
DC No 84 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

6 October 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

25 September 2006

JUDGES:

Holmes JA, Jones J and Atkinson J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant convicted of two offences of dishonestly obtaining property with circumstances of aggravation and sentenced to terms of three years imprisonment to be served concurrently – where applicant contends that he only received one-third of the amount dishonestly obtained – where applicant aware of the total nature of the scheme – where fraudulent conduct was targeted at vulnerable people – where little scope for mitigation – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Brady; Brindley and Shale [2005] QCA 135; CA Nos 32, 39 and 80 of 2005, 29 April 2005, considered
R v Rigney-Hopkins [2005] QCA 275; CA No 163 of 2005, 5 August 2005, considered
R v Robinson;ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 169; CA No 102 of 2004, 20 May 2004, considered
R v Singh [2005] QCA 403; CA No 179 of 2005, 4 November 2005, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
B W Farr for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf

Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

HOLMES JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Jones J and with the order proposed.

JONES J: The applicant, James Harold Tarbuck, seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on him in the District Court of Queensland in respect of his conviction for two offences of dishonestly obtaining property with circumstances of aggravation. The convictions followed a 13 day long trial. He was in each case, sentenced to concurrent terms of three years imprisonment.

The conduct giving rise to the offences involved the placement of advertisements in newspapers offering loans at low interest rates to ex-bankrupts and other persons with bad credit ratings. Contact by interested persons was made through a toll free telephone number which was answered by a person using a false name. Thereafter a loan application form and other documents were sent to the potential customer. When the application was returned the loan application was quickly approved subject to the receipt of a deposit amounting to 10% of the loan. The deposit was directed to be made to a nominated bank account. The telephone and facsimile numbers, the post box address and the bank accounts had been established using false names.

The persons who paid the deposits never received the loan…

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 Tarbuck

Details

AGLC: R v Tarbuck [2006] QCA 387
Case: [2006] QCA 387
Decision Date: 6 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tarbuck involved the appellant, who had been convicted of two offences of dishonestly obtaining property with circumstances of aggravation. The appellant was sentenced to terms of three years imprisonment to be served concurrently. The appellant sought to have his sentence reduced, contending that he only received one-third of the amount dishonestly obtained and that there was little scope for mitigation given the nature of the scheme and its targeting of vulnerable people.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in light of the appellant's contentions. The court had to consider whether the sentence was appropriate given the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offence, the culpability of the appellant, and the need for general and specific deterrence.

The court found that the appellant's sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the appellant was fully aware of the total nature of the scheme and that his fraudulent conduct was targeted at vulnerable people. The court held that there was little scope for mitigation and that the sentence imposed was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences. The court refused the application to reduce the sentence.

The final order of the court was that the application to reduce the sentence was refused.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application 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 Tarbuck [2006] QCA 387
PARTIES:	R v TARBUCK, James Harold (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 75 of 2006 DC No 84 of 2006
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	6 October 2006
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	25 September 2006
JUDGES:	Holmes JA, Jones J and Atkinson J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where applicant convicted of two offences of dishonestly obtaining property with circumstances of aggravation and sentenced to terms of three years imprisonment to be served concurrently – where applicant contends that he only received one-third of the amount dishonestly obtained – where applicant aware of the total nature of the scheme – where fraudulent conduct was targeted at vulnerable people – where little scope for mitigation – whether sentence was manifestly excessive R v Brady; Brindley and Shale [2005] QCA 135; CA Nos 32, 39 and 80 of 2005, 29 April 2005, considered R v Rigney-Hopkins [2005] QCA 275; CA No 163 of 2005, 5 August 2005, considered R v Robinson;ex parte A-G (Qld) [2004] QCA 169; CA No 102 of 2004, 20 May 2004, considered R v Singh [2005] QCA 403; CA No 179 of 2005, 4 November 2005, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf B W Farr for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent