Smith v The Queen

In the matter of Smith v The Queen, the applicant, previously a branch manager for Westpac Banking Corporation, was found guilty of 22 counts of theft as a servant. The total amount stolen amounted to $667,750, with $440,534 remaining outstanding at the time of her guilty pleas. The applicant was sentenced to a concurrent term of 2.5 years' imprisonment for each count, with eligibility for parole, and was given credit for the time already spent in custody. The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that the trial judge erred in not imposing a wholly suspended sentence.

The central legal issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge erred in not imposing a wholly suspended sentence on the applicant. The applicant's counsel argued that the judge placed too much emphasis on the principles of general deterrence and did not adequately consider the applicant's personal circumstances, which they argued warranted a wholly suspended sentence. The Crown, on the other hand, submitted that the sentence was appropriate given the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.

The court found that the trial judge had not erred in imposing a custodial sentence. The court noted that the thefts were premeditated and extensive, involving a substantial amount of money stolen over a significant period of time. The court also considered the need for general deterrence, given the breach of trust by someone in a position of responsibility. The court held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the offence, the need for general deterrence, and the personal circumstances of the applicant. The court further noted that the judge had taken into account the applicant's personal circumstances, including her age and the impact of the sentence on her family, in arriving at the sentence. The court found that the trial judge had exercised her sentencing discretion appropriately and refused the application for leave to appeal.