Rodgers v Robinson - [2021] TASSC 45

[2021] TASSC 45

COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA

CITATION: Rodgers v Robinson [2021] TASSC 45

PARTIES:  RODGERS, Olivia Rose
  v
  ROBINSON, Angela

FILE NO:  1701/2021
DELIVERED ON:  13 September 2021
DELIVERED AT:  Hobart
HEARING DATE:  3 September 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Blow CJ

CATCHWORDS:

Magistrates – Appeal and review – Tasmania – Motion to review – Other matters – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Multiple counts of dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage – Sentence of nine months' imprisonment with seven months suspended not manifestly excessive.

Aust Dig Magistrates [1349]

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
             Applicant:  F Cangelosi
             Respondent:  S Nicholson
Solicitors:
             Applicant:  D Loganathan
             Respondent:  Director of Public Prosecutions

Judgment Number: [2021] TASSC 45
Number of paragraphs: 31

Serial No 45/2021
File No 1701/2021

OLIVIA ROSE RODGERS v ANGELA ROBINSON

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT BLOW CJ

13 September 2021

This is a motion for the review of sentencing orders made by the Chief Magistrate, Ms C Geason. The applicant pleaded guilty to 62 charges of dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage. She was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, with seven months of that sentence suspended on condition that she commit no offence punishable by imprisonment for a period of two years. She contends that her sentence was manifestly excessive. She also contends that the learned Chief Magistrate erred in attaching insufficient weight to mitigating circumstances relating to restitution, delay, and her pleas of guilty.
The crimes in question were committed over a period of about 18 months, from 4 January 2016 to 13 July 2017. During that period the applicant was employed as a sales consultant and claims processor by a health insurance company named Bupa. She had been with the company since September 2011. During the period of offending she processed 62 fraudulent claims against the health insurance policies of nine customers of Bupa, and received payments totalling $65,512.75 as a result. The customers were all friends or relatives of hers. She took advantage of their trust in her to obtain their bank details. On 62 occasions she made up false invoices, giving details of known providers and false item numbers. She arranged for Bupa to make payments to the bank accounts of her friends and relatives, and then arranged transfers from their accounts to hers. She asked each of these people for permission to have payments in her favour deposited into their bank accounts, giving them various dishonest explanations for her request. When her offending came to light, at least four of these people were charged with offences. Some of them were committed for trial and indicted. All of those charged were later discharged.
Throughout the period of offending the applicant received wages from Bupa and also carried on a very successful make-up and beauty business. She received over $55,000 in net wages receiving from Bupa, together with $83,846 by way of takings (not profit) from her business.

Restitution

I will deal with the grounds of appeal relating to specific mitigating factors before addressing the question…

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 Rodgers v Robinson

Details

AGLC: Rodgers v Robinson [2021] TASSC 45
Case: [2021] TASSC 45
Decision Date: 13 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Rodgers appealed against a sentence imposed on Robinson by the Magistrates Court of Tasmania, which had convicted Robinson of multiple counts of dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage. The court imposed a sentence of nine months imprisonment, with seven months suspended. Rodgers argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal in Tasmania.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in the circumstances. The court needed to consider the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as the principles of sentencing in relation to the imposition of a custodial sentence. The court also needed to consider the principles of proportionality and whether the sentence was appropriate in all the circumstances.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that the offences were serious, involving multiple counts of dishonestly acquiring a financial advantage. However, the court also noted that Robinson had shown remorse and had no previous convictions. The court also noted that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offences. The court found that the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and was appropriate in all the circumstances.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders