R v Whitestyles - [2023] QCA 209

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Whitestyles [2023] QCA 209

PARTIES:

R
v
WHITESTYLES, Sonya Maree
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 191 of 2023
DC No 456 of 2023

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport – Date of Sentence: 4 October 2023 (Andreatidis KC DCJ)

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

27 October 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

27 October 2023

JUDGES:

Mullins P, Flanagan JA and Williams J

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud – where for count 1 the applicant was sentenced to 19 months’ imprisonment suspended after serving three months in custody for an operational period of three years and for each of counts 2 and 3 three months’ imprisonment with a probation order for three years – where the applicant operated an alternative medical clinic and held herself out to be a registered nurse when dealing with patients when she was not a registered nurse – where the applicant consulted with six patients and gave medical advice and treatment when she knew she did not have the authority to do so (count 1) – where the applicant recruited two doctors to provide consultancy services to the applicant’s business – where one doctor authorised 36 prescriptions (count 2) and another doctor 1,245 prescriptions (count 3) in circumstances where the applicant held herself out as a registered nurse – where the applicant suffered from mental health illness – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the sentencing judge erred in placing too much emphasis on s 9(2)(c) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and in failing to have regard, or sufficient regard, to s 9(2)(a) – whether the sentencing judge erred in not recognising that the applicant’s mental illness reduced the utility of a deterrent sentence and a sentence involving actual imprisonment would weigh more heavily on the applicant – where the applicant holding herself out as a registered nurse added to the seriousness of the frauds and made general deterrence a relevant factor despite the applicant’s mental health issues

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2)

R v Yarwood (2011) 220 A Crim R 497; [2011] QCA 367, cited

COUNSEL:

M J Lazinski for the applicant
E L Kelso for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Guardian Criminal Law for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MULLINS P: The applicant pleaded guilty on 31 August 2023 to three counts of fraud. Count 1 was particularised that on various dates between 4 December 2018 and 11 November 2021 the applicant dishonestly obtained bank credits and a sum of money from persons contrary to s 408C(1)(b) of the Criminal Code (Qld). Count 2 was particularised that on various dates between 1 April and 10 June 2019 the applicant dishonestly induced one doctor to authorise prescriptions that…

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 Whitestyles

Details

AGLC: R v Whitestyles [2023] QCA 209
Case: [2023] QCA 209
Decision Date: 27 October 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Whitestyles involved the applicant who pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud, which involved falsely representing herself as a registered nurse while operating an alternative medical clinic. The applicant was sentenced to a suspended term of imprisonment and probation for each count. The applicant appealed against her sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had erred in various respects. The appeal focused on whether the sentence was too harsh, whether the judge had placed too much emphasis on certain factors, and whether the judge had failed to adequately consider the applicant's mental health issues.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, if the sentencing judge had erred in their application of the relevant sentencing legislation, and whether the judge had failed to properly consider the mitigating factor of the applicant's mental health. The applicant argued that the sentence was too harsh, particularly given her mental health condition, and that the judge had not sufficiently balanced the need for general deterrence against the personal circumstances of the applicant. The applicant also argued that the judge had not given adequate weight to the mitigating factors, including her mental health, and had placed too much emphasis on the seriousness of the frauds due to her misrepresentation as a registered nurse.

The court considered the applicant's arguments and examined the sentencing principles and legislation applicable to the case. The court noted that the applicant's conduct was serious, involving multiple instances of fraud and deception. However, the court also recognised that the applicant suffered from mental health issues, which could be a mitigating factor. The court concluded that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the seriousness of the offences and the need for general deterrence, and that the judge had not erred in their application of the relevant sentencing legislation. The court held that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the offences committed.

The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal, finding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had appropriately exercised their discretion. The court emphasised the seriousness of the applicant's conduct and the need for general deterrence, while also acknowledging the mitigating factor of the applicant's mental health. The court determined that the appeal did not present a case where the sentence was so excessive as to justify interference by the appellate court.

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 Whitestyles [2023] QCA 209
PARTIES:	R v WHITESTYLES, Sonya Maree (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 191 of 2023 DC No 456 of 2023
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport – Date of Sentence: 4 October 2023 (Andreatidis KC DCJ)
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	27 October 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	27 October 2023
JUDGES:	Mullins P, Flanagan JA and Williams J
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to three counts of fraud – where for count 1 the applicant was sentenced to 19 months’ imprisonment suspended after serving three months in custody for an operational period of three years and for each of counts 2 and 3 three months’ imprisonment with a probation order for three years – where the applicant operated an alternative medical clinic and held herself out to be a registered nurse when dealing with patients when she was not a registered nurse – where the applicant consulted with six patients and gave medical advice and treatment when she knew she did not have the authority to do so (count 1) – where the applicant recruited two doctors to provide consultancy services to the applicant’s business – where one doctor authorised 36 prescriptions (count 2) and another doctor 1,245 prescriptions (count 3) in circumstances where the applicant held herself out as a registered nurse – where the applicant suffered from mental health illness – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive – whether the sentencing judge erred in placing too much emphasis on s 9(2)(c) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) and in failing to have regard, or sufficient regard, to s 9(2)(a) – whether the sentencing judge erred in not recognising that the applicant’s mental illness reduced the utility of a deterrent sentence and a sentence involving actual imprisonment would weigh more heavily on the applicant – where the applicant holding herself out as a registered nurse added to the seriousness of the frauds and made general deterrence a relevant factor despite the applicant’s mental health issues Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2) R v Yarwood (2011) 220 A Crim R 497; [2011] QCA 367, cited
COUNSEL:	M J Lazinski for the applicant E L Kelso for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Guardian Criminal Law for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent