Legal Research
Cases
Vargess v Hughes

Vargess v Hughes

Case [2017] WASC 291 21 September 2017

Type to search within this case.

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CRIMINAL

CITATION: VARGESS -v- HUGHES [2017] WASC 291

CORAM: ALLANSON J

HEARD: 21 SEPTEMBER 2017

DELIVERED : 21 SEPTEMBER 2017

FILE NO/S: SJA 1040 of 2017

BETWEEN: KEVIN VARGESS
Appellant
AND
JONATHAN PETER HUGHES
Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :  MAGISTRATES COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram  :MAGISTRATE G MIGNACCA-RANDAZZO
File No  :PE 6558 of 2017, PE 6559 of 2017, PE 6560 of 2017, PE 6561 of 2017, PE 6562 of 2017, PE 6563 of 2017, PE 6564 of 2017, PE 6565 of 2017, PE 6566 of 2017, PE 6567 of 2017, PE 6568 of 2017, PE 6569 of 2017, PE 6570 of 2017, PE 6571 of 2017, PE 6572 of 2017, PE 6573 of 2017, PE 6574 of 2017, PE 6575 of 2017, PE 6576 of 2017, PE 6577 of 2017, PE 6578 of 2017, PE 6579 of 2017, PE 6580 of 2017, PE 6581 of 2017, PE 6582 of 2017, PE 6583 of 2017, PE 6584 of 2017, PE 6585 of 2017, PE 6586 of 2017, PE 6587 of 2017, PE 6588 of 2017, PE 6589 of 2017, PE 6590 of 2017, PE 6591 of 2017

Catchwords:

Criminal law - Appeal against sentence - Where multiple fraud offences - Whether only imprisonment justified - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Criminal Code Act 1913 (WA), s 409
Sentencing Act 1995 (WA), s 6, s 54, s 58, s 76, s 77, s 80

Result:

Leave to appeal granted
Appeal on ground 1 allowed
Sentence of imprisonment set aside
Appellant resentenced

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant: Ms S H King
Respondent: Ms G N Beggs

Solicitors:

Appellant: Legal Aid (WA)
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions (WA)

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

DC v The State of Western Australia [2014] WASCA 121
El Rakhawy v The Queen [2011] WASCA 209
Long v Mayger [2004] WASCA 41; (2004) 142 A Crim R 289
Magdi v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 234
McNamara v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 193
Pearce v The Queen [1998] HCA 57; (1998) 194 CLR 610
R v Alimic [2006] VSCA 273
R v Baldock [2010] WASCA 170; (2010) 203 A Crim R 214
Roffey v The State of Western Australia [2007] WASCA 246
Wilson v The State of Western Australia [2010] WASCA 82
ALLANSON J:
(These reasons were given orally and have been edited from the transcript.)

Kevin Vargess

On 25 May 2017, Mr Vargess was convicted in the Magistrates Court on 34 charges of gaining a benefit with intent to defraud, contrary to s 409(1)(c) of the Criminal Code. Mr Vargess pleaded guilty.
The offences were committed between 13 July 2013 and 23 August 2015. The statement of material facts was brief. The prosecutor advised the court that only the date and the value of the benefit received changed between the charges. The substance of each offence was that Mr Vargess submitted an online claim to Medibank Private,…

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 Vargess v Hughes

Details

AGLC: Vargess v Hughes [2017] WASC 291
Case: [2017] WASC 291
Decision Date: 21 SEPTEMBER 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Vargess v Hughes involved an appeal by the defendant against the severity of a sentence imposed by the lower court. The defendant, Vargess, was found guilty of multiple counts of fraud. The nature of the dispute centred on whether the sentence of imprisonment, as handed down, was justified given the circumstances of the case. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, which was tasked with reviewing the lower court's decision.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the imposition of a custodial sentence was warranted for the defendant's multiple fraud offences. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing and whether the severity of the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed. The court also needed to assess whether there were any mitigating factors that could justify a less severe sentence.

In delivering the judgment, the Supreme Court acknowledged the seriousness of the offences but also considered the defendant's personal circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and examined whether the custodial sentence was the only justified outcome. Ultimately, the court found that while the offences were severe, the sentence imposed was excessive. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the court substituted a less severe sentence for the original one.

Orders