R v Wood

[2014] QCA 256

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Wood [2014] QCA 256

PARTIES:

R
v
WOOD, Michele Diane
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 96 of 2014
DC No 381 of 2012

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Cairns

DELIVERED ON:

10 October 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

30 September 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser and Gotterson JJA and Mullins J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Application for leave to adduce evidence refused.

2. 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 tried on two counts of fraud and found guilty – where the applicant was sentenced to four and one-half years imprisonment – where the applicant sought release after serving 12 to 15 months of the sentence – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

R v Eveleigh[2009] QCA 257, considered
R v Gasenzer[2013] QCA 9, considered
R v Illguth[2014] QCA 222, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on her own behalf
B J Power for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

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

1. FRASER JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Mullins J and the orders proposed by her Honour.

1. GOTTERSON JA:  I agree with the orders proposed by Mullins J and with the reasons given by her Honour.

1. MULLINS J:  The applicant was found guilty after a trial lasting three days in the District Court of two counts of fraud as an employee, to the value of $5,000 or more.  The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for four and one-half years in respect of count 2 and given a concurrent sentence of imprisonment for one year in respect of count 1.  The applicant (who is self-represented) applies for leave to appeal against the effective sentence of imprisonment of four and one-half years on the ground that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

The circumstances of the offences

1. The applicant was employed by the complainant for count 1, Mr Jones, as a bookkeeper and courier for his transport business.  The same business was then constituted as the business of the complainant company named in count 2 which became the applicant’s employer.

1. To accommodate the applicant’s circumstances, the office of the transport business was conducted from the applicant’s home, where the employer provided a computer to enable the applicant to carry out transactions for the employer using internet banking.

1. At the trial, the applicant’s counsel on behalf of the applicant admitted the correctness of the schedule (exhibit 1), setting out the five transactions the subject of count 1 and the 181 transactions the subject of count 2, as identifying what was reflected in the relevant bank accounts and the employer’s accounting system.

1. The fraud was committed by the applicant transferring…