DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
WorkCover Queensland v Stanley [2010] QDC 48
PARTIES:
WORKCOVER QUEENSLAND
(Appellant)v
SANDRA CLARE STANLEY
(Respondent)FILE NO/S:
BD1456/09
DIVISION:
Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Section 222 Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:
Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:
5 March 2010
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
14 September 2009
JUDGE:
Tutt DCJ
ORDER:
1. Appeal is allowed;
2. The Magistrate’s orders of 29 April 2009 are set aside and in lieu thereof the orders of this court are:
(a) in respect of charge 1 (“fraud”), the respondent is convicted; a conviction is recorded and the respondent be sentenced to 6 months imprisonment wholly suspended forthwith for an operational period of 18 months i.e. she must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within the period of 18 months if she is to avoid being dealt with under section 146 of the Penalties and Sentence Act 1992 for the suspended term of imprisonment;
(b) the respondent pays the appellant the sum of $60,027.12 by way of restitution and the sum of $11,732.23 for investigation costs with reference to S.P.E.R in default levy and distress;
3. in respect of charges 10, 11 and 12 (“false or misleading information”) the respondent is convicted of each charge; convictions are recorded and the respondent is sentenced to 3 months imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentence in 2(a) above, wholly suspended forthwith for an operational period of 12 months;
4. the respondent is further ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis;
5. the respondent be granted an indemnity certificate in respect of such costs pursuant to section 15(2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973.
CATCHWORDS:
APPEAL - Justices Act 1886 section 222 – appeal against sentence – where respondent pleaded guilty to one charge of “fraud” against WorkCover Queensland (ss 533 and 535 of the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003(“WCRA”)) and 3 charges of “false or misleading information (s. 534 of “WCRA”) – where sentence imposed was “conviction recorded and one month’s imprisonment wholly suspended for 18 months” on each offence with further order to pay “restitution and investigation costs with reference to S.P.E.R in default levy and distress” – whether sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate in the circumstances.
Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973 s 15(2)
Justices Act 1886 s 222
Magistrates Courts Act 1921 s 4
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992ss 9, 144(6), 146
Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 ss. 533, 534, 535, 537
Aldrich v Ross [2001] 2 Rd 235 at 257 Fox v Percy [2003] 214 CLR 118
Allesch v Maunz [2000] 203 CLR 172
David v. Thomas [1997] 156 QGIG 647
Fahey v Keating (2003) QGIG 78
Fox v Percy [2003] 214 CLR 118
House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
Norbis v Norbis [1986] 161 CLR 513
R v Kelly (2006) QCA 467
Continue reading WorkCover Queensland v Stanley
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- WorkCover Queensland v Stanley [2010] QDC 48
- Case
- [2010] QDC 48
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal held that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate. It considered the gravity of the offences, the financial losses caused to WorkCover Queensland, and the need for an appropriate level of punishment and deterrence. The Court found that the original sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crimes or provide sufficient deterrence. The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was set aside. In its place, the Court imposed a conviction with a six-month wholly suspended sentence for the fraud charge, to be served concurrently with three months wholly suspended sentences for the other charges, all for an operational period of 12 months. The Court also ordered restitution and costs to be paid to WorkCover Queensland.
The Court further ordered that Stanley pay the costs of the appeal, to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis, and granted an indemnity certificate in respect of those costs. The sentence imposed by the Court of Appeal aimed to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and the operational period during which Stanley must remain offence-free to avoid the suspended sentences being activated.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Appeal is allowed;
2. The Magistrate’s orders of 29 April 2009 are set aside and in lieu thereof the orders of this court are:
(a) in respect of charge 1 (“fraud”), the respondent is convicted; a conviction is recorded and the respondent be sentenced to 6 months imprisonment wholly suspended forthwith for an operational period of 18 months i.e. she must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within the period of 18 months if she is to avoid being dealt with under section 146 of the Penalties and Sentence Act 1992 for the suspended term of imprisonment;
(b) the respondent pays the appellant the sum of $60,027.12 by way of restitution and the sum of $11,732.23 for investigation costs with reference to S.P.E.R in default levy and distress;
3. in respect of charges 10, 11 and 12 (“false or misleading information”) the respondent is convicted of each charge; convictions are recorded and the respondent is sentenced to 3 months imprisonment to be served concurrently with the sentence in 2(a) above, wholly suspended forthwith for an operational period of 12 months;
4. the respondent is further ordered to pay the appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal to be agreed or assessed on the standard basis;
5. the respondent be granted an indemnity certificate in respect of such costs pursuant to section 15(2) of the Appeal Costs Fund Act 1973.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.