R v Wilson

[2013] QCA 260

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Wilson [2013] QCA 260
PARTIES:	R v WILSON, Tania Ann
(applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 126 of 2012 DC No 2233 of 2011
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING  COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	13 September 2013
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 August 2013
JUDGES:	Muir and Gotterson JJA and North J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant was
convicted of three counts of fraud and sentenced to a period of seven years imprisonment for each of counts 1 and 3 and
a lesser concurrent term for count 2 – where the applicant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive – where
the applicant conceded no identifiable error of principle but contended that the sentence was impermissibly at the high
end of the range – whether the sentence was manifestly
excessive in all the circumstances
Criminal Code 1899 (Qld), s 408
R v Cox [2010] QCA 262, cited R v Shiels [2011] QCA 115, cited R v Spalding [2002] QCA 538, distinguished R v Tindale [2008] QCA 24, cited
COUNSEL:	B H P Mumford for the applicant V A Loury for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Fisher Dore Lawyers for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

1. MUIR JA: I agree that the application should be refused for the reasons given by Gotterson JA.

2. GOTTERSON JA: After a trial over five days in the District Court at Brisbane, the applicant, Tania Ann Wilson, was convicted on three counts of fraud. Under two of the counts, numerous offences were charged. The applicant dishonestly applied property belonging to her employer. The crimes were committed against ss 408(1)(a)(i) and (2)(b) of the Criminal Code (Qld).

3. The applicant was sentenced on 9 December 2011 to seven years imprisonment on counts 1 and 3 and to three years imprisonment on count 2. All sentences are concurrent. A parole eligibility date of 9 June 2015 was fixed.

   Circumstances of the offending

4. The two complainant companies, Miltcoe Pty Ltd (“Miltcoe”) and Jendale Pty Ltd

   (“Jendale”), conducted a family run business. The directors of each company were

   a married couple, Robert and Jene Jones. Mr Jones was principally a property developer although he had other interests including owning a motel. The applicant commenced employment with Miltcoe in 2002. She was a personal assistant to Mr Jones who was the managing director. Part of her role involved preparing the wages, paying invoices and banking. For that role she had access to the bank accounts of both Miltcoe and Jendale.

5. The applicant used two methods to defraud. She would falsify and forge cheques directing payment to her credit card accounts (counts 1 and 2) and she would…