Sarah-Jane Vaughan v The Queen - [2011] NSWCCA 4

Court of Criminal Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Sarah-Jane Vaughan v R [2011] NSWCCA 4
Hearing dates: 1 February 2011
Decision date: 01 February 2011
Before: McClellan CJ at CL at 17
Adams J at 18
Buddin J at 1
Decision:
Leave to appeal granted.
Appeal dismissed

Catchwords: CRIMINAL LAW - appeal against sentence - various offences of obtaining a financial advantage - breach of trust - substantial sum of money obtained - whether sentences were appropriately structured - whether overall sentence manifestly excessive
Legislation Cited: Crimes Act 1900
Cases Cited: Pearce v The Queen (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v XX [2009] NSWCCA 115
Category: Principal judgment
Parties: Sarah-Jane VAUGHAN (Applicant)
Regina (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
F Coyne (Applicant)
V Lydiard (Crown)
Solicitors:
Matthew Hammond Solicitors (Applicant)
S Kavanagh - Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number(s): 2009/129007
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9101

Date of Decision:

2010-04-08 00:00:00

Before:

Tupman DCJ

File Number(s):

2009/129007

Judgment

BUDDIN J : The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon her in the District Court following her pleas of guilty to an indictment containing five counts. Each count alleged a contravention of s 178BA(1) of the Crimes Act 1900 which creates an offence of dishonestly obtaining a financial advantage. At the relevant time that offence attracted a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment. The sentencing judge was asked, when imposing sentence, to take into account five additional offences of the same kind which appeared on a Form 1 document. All five counts on the indictment as well as the Form 1 matters were in the same terms except for the amount of money involved and the periods of time over which it was obtained.

The sentencing judge imposed an overall effective term of imprisonment of 5 years with an effective non-parole period of 3 years. In respect of each of the first four counts, the applicant received a fixed term of 2 years imprisonment. The sentence for the first count was ordered to commence on 8 April 2010, the sentence for the second count on 8 October 2010 whilst the sentences for the third and fourth counts were each ordered to commence on 8 April 2011. In respect of the final count, and after taking into account the Form 1 matters, a non-parole period of 12 months which was ordered to commence on 8 April 2012 with a parole period of 2 years was imposed upon the applicant.

The sentence hearing proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts which revealed that the applicant had been employed as an account keeper and a personal assistant to the managing director and company secretary of Argonaut Resources Pty Limited. For the 9 years that she worked in that position the applicant was the only employee, other than the managing director, working in the company's head office.

The sentencing judge outlined the factual background to the applicant's offending behaviour in the following terms:

Her responsibilities included mail duties, book entries,…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sarah-Jane Vaughan v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2011] NSWCCA 4
Decision Date: 01 February 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sarah-Jane Vaughan versus The Queen involved an appeal by the defendant against the sentences imposed upon her conviction for several offences relating to the fraudulent acquisition of a financial benefit. Vaughan had been found guilty of multiple counts of obtaining a financial advantage by breaching her position of trust, resulting in the acquisition of a substantial sum of money. The appeal before the court centred on the appropriateness of the sentence's structure and the overall severity of the sentence imposed.

The court was required to determine whether the sentences handed down by the primary judge were appropriately structured to reflect the nature and circumstances of the offences committed, and whether the cumulative effect of the sentences was manifestly excessive. The court's analysis involved examining the principles of sentencing, including the need to ensure that sentences are proportionate to the seriousness of the offending and the principles of general and specific deterrence.

The court found that the sentences were appropriately structured, reflecting the cumulative effect of Vaughan's offending and the need for specific deterrence given the breach of trust involved. The court concluded that the overall sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the substantial sum of money obtained and the nature of the offences. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the sentences imposed by the primary judge were upheld.

Orders