Legal Research
Cases
The Queen v Jobson

The Queen v Jobson

Case [2013] VSC 214 30 April 2013

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2012 0157

THE QUEEN

WENDY HOPE JOBSON

---

JUDGE:	PRIEST JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 April 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 April 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Jobson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 214

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Theft – 6 rolled up charges of theft by an employee from employer totalling over $7.8 million – Committed of a 6 year period - Plea of guilty – Sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 5 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P N Rose SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M D Stanton	Spicer Lawyer

HIS HONOUR:

Wendy Hope Jobson, yours was a massive fraud committed over a period of six years, from November 2006 until September 2011. As a trusted employee, you stole almost eight million dollars from your employer. In the circumstances, I have no option other than to sentence you to a substantial term of imprisonment.[1] For the reasons I will shortly state, I intend to sentence you to be imprisoned for a period of 8 years, and to fix a non-parole period of 5 years.
[1]See Sentencing Act 1991, ss 5(3) and (4).

You have pleaded guilty to six counts of theft, each of which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment.[2]
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 74(1)

Each count of theft is a rolled-up count, that is, a collection of a large number of individual counts of theft bundled together into a single count. This could only have been done with your agreement. Use of rolled-up counts has considerably simplified my task in sentencing you. It also gives you considerable benefit, since the theoretical maximum sentence which could be imposed upon you is greatly reduced. Although you are to be sentenced for a large number of thefts embraced by each count, it is within the confines of a maximum sentence available on each count of 10 years’ imprisonment.[3]
[3]R v Jones [2004] VSCA 68, [13]; R v Beary (2004) 11 VR 151, 156–7 [11]–[14].

The amounts covered by each charge are substantial. Charge 1 – which relates to the least sum in any of the charges – is for thefts totalling $33,336.49 in 2006; charge 2 totals $456,014.20 in 2007; charge 3 is for $1,616,253.45 in 2008; charge 4 – which relates to the largest amount stolen in any year – is for $2,549,067.15 in 2009; charge 5 is almost as large, $2,228,593.91 in 2010; and charge 6, $935,628.46 in 2011.[4] The overall total is $7,818,893.66.
[4]I note that since none of the individual transactions embraced by the counts exceeds $50,000, none of the charges attracts the Continuing Criminal Enterprise Offenders provisions in Part 2B of the Sentencing Act1991: R v Ralphs [2004] VSCA 33, [9]–[10]; R v Shannon [2005] VSCA 143,…

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 The Queen v Jobson

Details

AGLC: The Queen v Jobson [2013] VSC 214
Case: [2013] VSC 214
Decision Date: 30 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Jobson, was charged with six counts of theft by an employee from his employer, resulting in a total loss exceeding $7.8 million over a six-year period. The defendant pleaded guilty to all charges and was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. The case was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to impose on the defendant for the extensive theft, given the substantial financial loss to his employer and the duration of the offending. The court needed to consider various factors, including the gravity of the offence, the defendant's culpability, and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the theft, noting the defendant's position of trust and the significant financial impact on his employer. It also considered the defendant's guilty plea, which was seen as an indication of remorse and acceptance of responsibility. In determining the sentence, the court balanced the need for punishment and deterrence against the potential for rehabilitation. The court concluded that an eight-year sentence with a non-parole period of five years was appropriate, reflecting the gravity of the offence while also allowing for the possibility of rehabilitation.

The Supreme Court of Victoria confirmed the sentence of eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. The court emphasized the importance of holding the defendant accountable for his actions and the need to protect the public from similar offending. The sentence also aimed to provide an opportunity for the defendant to reflect on his actions and potentially rehabilitate.

Orders