R v Taylor - [1994] QCA 574

[1994] QCA 574

COURT OF APPEAL
FITZGERALD P
PINCUS JA

DOWSETT J

CA No 406 of 1994
THE QUEEN
v.

WESLEY GRAHAM TAYLOR

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/11/94

JUDGMENT convicted of a number of offences of dishonesty in the District Court. He was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, the longest being seven years and no recommendation was made for parole.

Ms Richards who appears for him today complains principally of that circumstance, that is, the absence of a recommendation for parole and the grounds of counsel's complaint are the pleas of guilty, cooperation and requesting matters other than those charged to be taken into account.

The total amount involved in the offences charged and in two further offences which were taken into account under section 189 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 was about

$650,000. Nearly all the money involved was reimbursed or was
to be reimbursed to the persons from whom it was taken but
this reimbursement was not being done by the applicant.

The charges were 33 in all. There was alleged in each of them dishonest application to the applicant's own use of money or other property. With respect to 25 of them, circumstances of aggravation were charged but it seems unnecessary to set out the details of that.

The primary Judge sentenced the applicant, who pleaded guilty, and through his solicitors cooperated with the police to a substantial extent on the basis that he was involved in a deliberate and extensive scheme over a long period of time involving a number of individual clients. Her Honour thought the worst factor was that moneys were taken from people who trusted the applicant.

JUDGMENT

These offences were of the "white collar" kind - no houses were broken into. No-one was subjected to violence or the fear of violence. Nevertheless, considered as a whole, they

must be regarded as very serious. Counsel for the applicant securities sold by insurance companies, such as superannuation, bonds and investment bonds. By various means he stole from his clients moneys with which they entrusted him for the purpose of such investment. His simplest method of operation was to take moneys which were supposed to be paid to an insurance company and put them into his own account, but a considerable part of the money he obtained was got by forging letters of withdrawal, obtaining a cheque in favour of a client and endorsing it to himself.

below told the Judge that the applicant had worked principally
as a car salesman and to some extent a farmer until 1985 when
he began to work as an insurance agent. After engaging in
that for some unspecified time he went out on his own,
apparently in association with some others and began to deal
with a number of insurance companies as an independent agent.

It seems odd that these activities went on, apparently on a substantial scale, for some years without detection. If there is a public perception that there are adequate safeguards against crude fraud…

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 Taylor

Details

AGLC: R v Taylor [1994] QCA 574
Case: [1994] QCA 574
Decision Date: 23/11/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Taylor before the Court of Appeal involved Wesley Graham Taylor, who was convicted in the District Court of multiple offences of dishonesty, primarily involving the fraudulent misappropriation of funds from his clients. Taylor was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, with the longest being seven years, and no recommendation was made for parole. The appeal focused on the absence of a parole recommendation and the grounds of the applicant's cooperation, guilty pleas, and other mitigating factors. The total amount involved in the offences amounted to approximately $650,000, most of which was to be reimbursed to the victims, although this process was not yet complete.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentences imposed by the primary Judge were appropriate, particularly in light of the mitigating factors presented by Taylor's counsel, such as his cooperation with the police, guilty pleas, and the use of stolen funds to sustain his business rather than personal luxury. The Court had to consider whether these factors warranted a significant discount on the sentence and a recommendation for parole after a certain period of imprisonment.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary Judge had not sufficiently considered the mitigating factors presented by Taylor's counsel, particularly regarding the discount that should have been applied due to his cooperation and guilty pleas. The Crown conceded that two of the sentences imposed were related to matters not charged but taken into account under section 189 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, and these sentences were set aside. The Court varied the sentence by recommending consideration for parole after Taylor had served two and a half years.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal was allowed, the sentence was varied to include a recommendation for parole after two and a half years, and the sentences related to the matters taken into account under section 189 of the Penalties and Sentences Act were set aside. Otherwise, the sentences imposed by the primary Judge were confirmed.

Orders