R v Williams - [2014] QCA 154

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Williams [2014] QCA 154

PARTIES:

R
v
WILLIAMS, Sherie Ann
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 39 of 2014
DC No 457 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON:

27 June 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 June 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser and Morrison JJA and Philippides 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 – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced on her pleas to seven and a half years imprisonment on one count of fraud as an employee to the value of $5,000 or more and one count of fraud as an employee to the value of $30,000 or more, and two years imprisonment for one count of fraud as an employee – where the sentences were concurrent with parole eligibility after serving two years – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on the ground that they were manifestly excessive – whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C(2)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2)

R v Goodenough[2010] QCA 238, cited
R v Griffiths[1994] QCA 455, cited
R v Hogan, unreported, Clare DCJ, DC No 217 of 2014, 22 April 2014, cited
R v Margaritis[2013] QCA 401, cited
R v Singh[2006] QCA 71, cited
R v Tindale[2008] QCA 24, cited
R v Twidale[2009] QCA 200, cited
R v Tyrrel, unreported, Durward DCJ, DC No 1268 of 2013, cited
R v Wilson[2013] QCA 260, cited
R v Wolski, unreported, Searles DCJ, DC No 38 of 2013, 23 September 2013, cited
R v Wynyard, unreported, Devereaux DCJ, DC No 229 of 2012, 14 June 2012, cited

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
D A Holliday for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

FRASER JA: I agree with the reasons for judgment of Philippides J and the order proposed by her Honour.

MORRISON JA: I have read the reasons of Philippides J and agree with those reasons and that the application should be refused.

PHILIPPIDES J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on her on 13 February 2014 on the ground that they were manifestly excessive. The applicant was sentenced on her pleas to seven and a half years imprisonment on one count of fraud as an employee to the value of $5,000 or more (Count 1) and one count of fraud as an employee to the value of $30,000 or more (Count 2). She was sentenced to two years imprisonment for one count of fraud as an employee (Count 3). The…

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 Williams

Details

AGLC: R v Williams [2014] QCA 154
Case: [2014] QCA 154
Decision Date: 27 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Williams, was convicted on her pleas to various counts of fraud as an employee and was sentenced to a total of nine and a half years imprisonment, with sentences running concurrently and parole eligibility after two years. Williams sought leave to appeal against the sentences imposed, arguing that they were manifestly excessive.

The legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive. The applicant argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the offending and that the court had failed to take into account mitigating factors. The Crown argued that the sentences were appropriate given the seriousness of the offending.

The court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offending, the culpability of the applicant, and the need for general deterrence. The court noted that the applicant had a significant role in the offending and that the offending had a substantial impact on the victims. The court also noted that the sentences imposed were within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offending. The court found that the sentences imposed were not manifestly excessive and refused the applicant leave to appeal.

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 Williams [2014] QCA 154
PARTIES:	R v WILLIAMS, Sherie Ann (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 39 of 2014 DC No 457 of 2012
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Southport
DELIVERED ON:	27 June 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	20 June 2014
JUDGES:	Fraser and Morrison JJA and Philippides 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 – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was sentenced on her pleas to seven and a half years imprisonment on one count of fraud as an employee to the value of $5,000 or more and one count of fraud as an employee to the value of $30,000 or more, and two years imprisonment for one count of fraud as an employee – where the sentences were concurrent with parole eligibility after serving two years – where the applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on the ground that they were manifestly excessive – whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408C(2) Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 9(2) R v Goodenough[2010] QCA 238, cited R v Griffiths[1994] QCA 455, cited R v Hogan, unreported, Clare DCJ, DC No 217 of 2014, 22 April 2014, cited R v Margaritis[2013] QCA 401, cited R v Singh[2006] QCA 71, cited R v Tindale[2008] QCA 24, cited R v Twidale[2009] QCA 200, cited R v Tyrrel, unreported, Durward DCJ, DC No 1268 of 2013, cited R v Wilson[2013] QCA 260, cited R v Wolski, unreported, Searles DCJ, DC No 38 of 2013, 23 September 2013, cited R v Wynyard, unreported, Devereaux DCJ, DC No 229 of 2012, 14 June 2012, cited
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf D A Holliday for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on her own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent