R v Tsougranis - [2017] QCA 264

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Tsougranis [2017] QCA 264

PARTIES:

R
v
TSOUGRANIS, Vasilia
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 359 of 2016
DC No 1550 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 23 November 2016 (Muir DCJ)

DELIVERED ON:

7 November 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

6 June 2017

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson and Philippides JJA

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant was convicted on her pleas of guilty of four counts of dishonestly causing a pecuniary detriment to a person – where the applicant held herself out as a foreign currency trader and accepted funds from four complainants on the premise that she would invest these funds – where all four counts were charged with circumstances of aggravation – where the fraud involved some planning, conniving, and breaches of trust in relation to the complainants – where each offence with those circumstances of aggravation had a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 12 years at the relevant time – where the applicant was sentenced on each count to imprisonment for five years with an order that the imprisonment be suspended after serving 12 months, for an operational period of five years – where a psychologist considered that the offender had a moderate gambling disorder and adjustment disorder with depressed mood at the time of the offending – whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to accord adequate weight to the consideration that the applicant’s offending was attributable to a psychological condition

Criminal Code (Qld), s 408C(1)(e), s 408C(2)(c)

R v Goodger[2009] QCA 377, cited
R v Huff[2012] QCA 138, cited
R v La Rosa; ex parte Attorney-General[2006] QCA 19, cited
R v Martin[2015] QCA 257, cited
R v Spalding [2002] QCA 538, applied
R v Whiting [2013] QCA 18, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Copley QC for the applicant
J A Wooldridge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Couper Geysen for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: The applicant pleaded guilty to four counts of dishonestly causing a pecuniary detriment to a person, contrary to s 408C(1)(e) of the Criminal Code. Each count charged the circumstance of aggravation in s 408C(2)(c) that property in relation to which the offence was committed came into the possession of the applicant subject to a condition that it should be applied to a purpose or paid to a person (that it should be applied to foreign currency trading on account of the complainant); and counts 1, 3, and 4 also charged the circumstance of aggravation that the property was of a value of more than $30,000. For each offence with those circumstances of aggravation the maximum penalty at the relevant times was imprisonment for 12 years.

The applicant was sentenced on each…

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 Tsougranis

Details

AGLC: R v Tsougranis [2017] QCA 264
Case: [2017] QCA 264
Decision Date: 7 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, the applicant was convicted of four counts of causing a pecuniary detriment by deception. She had represented herself as a foreign currency trader and accepted funds from four individuals with the promise of investing them. Each offence carried an aggravating circumstance, leading to a maximum penalty of 12 years' imprisonment at the time. The applicant was sentenced to five years' imprisonment on each count, with a suspension after 12 months and an operational period of five years. The sentencing judge did not give significant weight to the applicant's psychological conditions, including a moderate gambling disorder and an adjustment disorder with depressed mood, as identified by a psychologist. The applicant sought to appeal the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge did not adequately consider her psychological conditions as a mitigating factor.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentencing judge erred in not giving sufficient weight to the applicant’s psychological conditions as a mitigating factor in the sentencing process. The court had to consider whether the failure to properly account for these conditions amounted to a significant error in the sentencing process that warranted interference by the appellate court. This involved a review of the sentencing principles and the role of psychological evidence in determining an appropriate sentence.

The court held that the sentencing judge did not err in the way they considered the applicant's psychological conditions. The judge acknowledged these conditions but determined that they did not sufficiently mitigate the seriousness of the offences. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate and that the judge had appropriately balanced the aggravating and mitigating factors. The court also noted that while psychological conditions could be relevant, they did not necessarily absolve the offender of responsibility for their actions. Consequently, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal was refused.

No further orders were made beyond the refusal of the application for leave to appeal. The original sentence, with imprisonment suspended after 12 months and an operational period of five years, remained in place.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal 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 Tsougranis [2017] QCA 264
PARTIES:	R v TSOUGRANIS, Vasilia (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 359 of 2016 DC No 1550 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane – Date of Sentence: 23 November 2016 (Muir DCJ)
DELIVERED ON:	7 November 2017
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	6 June 2017
JUDGES:	Fraser and Gotterson and Philippides JJA
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant was convicted on her pleas of guilty of four counts of dishonestly causing a pecuniary detriment to a person – where the applicant held herself out as a foreign currency trader and accepted funds from four complainants on the premise that she would invest these funds – where all four counts were charged with circumstances of aggravation – where the fraud involved some planning, conniving, and breaches of trust in relation to the complainants – where each offence with those circumstances of aggravation had a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 12 years at the relevant time – where the applicant was sentenced on each count to imprisonment for five years with an order that the imprisonment be suspended after serving 12 months, for an operational period of five years – where a psychologist considered that the offender had a moderate gambling disorder and adjustment disorder with depressed mood at the time of the offending – whether the sentencing judge erred in failing to accord adequate weight to the consideration that the applicant’s offending was attributable to a psychological condition Criminal Code (Qld), s 408C(1)(e), s 408C(2)(c) R v Goodger[2009] QCA 377, cited R v Huff[2012] QCA 138, cited R v La Rosa; ex parte Attorney-General[2006] QCA 19, cited R v Martin[2015] QCA 257, cited R v Spalding [2002] QCA 538, applied R v Whiting [2013] QCA 18, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Copley QC for the applicant J A Wooldridge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Couper Geysen for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent