Walker v The King - [2023] SASCA 79

SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Court of Appeal: Criminal)
WALKER v THE KING
[2023] SASCA 79
Judgment of the Court of Appeal
(The Honourable Justice Lovell, the Honourable Justice Doyle and the Honourable Justice David)
27 July 2023
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE - GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE - SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE
CRIMINAL LAW - PARTICULAR OFFENCES - PROPERTY OFFENCES - OTHER FRAUDS AND IMPOSITIONS - FRAUDULENTLY OR DECEPTIVELY OBTAINING MONEY, VALUABLE, FINANCIAL BENEFIT OR ADVANTAGE - SENTENCE
The appellant and her partner, Mr Lees, pleaded guilty to a series of offences arising out of a sophisticated and large-scale computer hacking scheme.
The respondent concedes that the sentencing Judge had regard to the incorrect maximum penalty for Counts 12, 14, 16 and 17. Given the outcome in Lees v The Queen [2022] SASCA 93, the appellant submits that on the separate and independent exercise of the sentencing discretion by this Court, a lower starting point for Counts 12, 14, 16 and 17 and Counts 3 to 9 should be adopted.
Held, per the Court, allowing the appeal on Ground 1, setting aside the sentence and re-sentencing the appellant to three years, two months and 15 days' imprisonment with a non-parole period of one year and nine months:
1.The sentencing Judge had regard to the incorrect maximum penalty in relation to Counts 12, 14, 16 and 17. We would allow the appeal on this Ground, set aside the sentence and re-sentence the appellant.
2.In relation to Counts 12, 14, 16 and 17, we would commence with a starting point of two years' imprisonment.
3.In relation to Counts 3 to 9, we would commence with a starting point of two years and nine months' imprisonment.

Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) ss 86E(1), 86F(1), 86I, 144D, 140(4), referred to.
Lees v The Queen [2022] SASCA 93, applied.
Kroni v The Queen [2021] SASCFC 15, considered.

WALKER v THE KING
[2023] SASCA 79
Court of Appeal – Criminal: Lovell, Doyle and David JJA

THE COURT: The appellant and her partner, Mr Lees, pleaded guilty to a series of offences arising out of a sophisticated and large-scale computer hacking scheme. Through the scheme, the appellant and Mr Lees fraudulently diverted approximately $1.15 million from the funds of at least 23 organisations.
The appellant pleaded guilty to a lesser number of offences (13 offences) than Mr Lees (21 offences). She was sentenced to four years, 10 months and 27 days imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and 10 months.
The respondent concedes, as it did in relation to the successful sentence appeal of Mr Lees, that the sentencing Judge had regard to the incorrect maximum penalty for Counts 12, 14, 16 and 17. The approach by this Court in Lees v The Queen (Lees),[1] was to set aside the sentence and resentence the appellant; we would adopt the same course.

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 Walker v The King

Details

AGLC: Walker v The King [2023] SASCA 79
Case: [2023] SASCA 79
Decision Date: 27 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Walker v The King*, the appellant, Walker, appealed against a sentence imposed by the District Court. The specific nature of the dispute concerned the severity of the sentence handed down for offences related to fraudulently or deceptively obtaining money, a valuable, financial benefit, or advantage. The appeal was heard by Lovell, Doyle, and David JJ.

The central legal issue before the appellate court was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive or inadequate, thereby providing grounds for interference on appeal. This required the court to consider the principles governing sentencing for property offences of this nature and to assess whether the sentencing judge had erred in their determination of an appropriate penalty.

The court's reasoning would have involved a careful review of the facts of the case, the appellant's criminal history, the nature and gravity of the offences, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. The judges would have applied established sentencing principles, including the need for punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation of criminal conduct. The ultimate determination would hinge on whether the sentence fell outside the bounds of what a reasonable sentencing judge, properly applying the law and considering all relevant circumstances, could have imposed.

Orders