Workers' Compensation Regulator v Crowder - [2023] QDC 95

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Crowder [2023] QDC 95

PARTIES:

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR
(appellant)
v
LEANNE CROWDER
(respondent)

FILE NO:

BD 1341/22

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal

Magistrates Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

9 June 2023

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

19 April 2023 (further written submissions on 5, 6 and 7 June 2023)

JUDGE:

Rosengren DCJ

ORDER:

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The application by the Regulator for leave to adduce new evidence is refused.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – s 222 APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEALS BY THE REGULATOR – EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – GENERALLY – where the respondent pleaded guilty to fraud and attempted fraud in relation to a WorkCover claim – where the respondent was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment wholly suspended for four years and ordered to perform community service – where there were errors in the sentencing discretion – where the sentence was manifestly inadequate

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEALS BY THE REGULATOR – RESIDUAL DISCRETION – where one year has passed since the respondent was sentenced to a wholly suspended term of imprisonment – where the respondent has performed the community service and is in employment – whether the Court should exercise its residual discretion not to return the respondent to custody

Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 9(1), s 9(2)(a), 9(10)

Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld)
s 537(5)

DPP (Cth) v Gregory (2011) 211 A Crim R 147
McLean v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2021] QDC 22
R v Chmieluk; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2018] QCA 271
R v Hopper; Ex parte Attorney-General [2014] QCA 108
R v Major; Ex parte Attorney-General [2012] 1 Qd R 465
R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212
R v Schenk; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2016] QCA 131
R v Tout [2012] QCA 296
R v Yarwood [2011] QCA 367
Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489
Walia v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2021] QDC 235

COUNSEL:

B Pitkeathly for the appellant
T Ryan KC the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the appellant
Ly Lawyers for the respondent

Ms Crowder was initially charged with one count of defrauding WorkCover Queensland (‘WorkCover’), four counts of knowingly making a false or misleading statement to WorkCover and one count of attempting to defraud WorkCover. These offences related to a claim for compensation she made to WorkCover Queensland under the Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) (‘the WCR Act’).

On 21 January 2022, Ms Crowder pleaded guilty in the Brisbane Magistrates Court to the count of fraud and the count of attempted fraud. No evidence was offered in relation to the remaining four counts (which were in effect the particulars of the fraud charge). On 13 May 2022 Ms Crowder was sentenced as follows:

(i) defrauding WorkCover – two years’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of four years; and

(ii) attempted fraud – 200…

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 Workers' Compensation Regulator v Crowder

Details

AGLC: Workers' Compensation Regulator v Crowder [2023] QDC 95
Case: [2023] QDC 95
Decision Date: 9 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Workers' Compensation Regulator v Crowder, the Workers' Compensation Regulator appealed the sentence of the respondent, Crowder, who had pleaded guilty to charges of fraud and attempted fraud in relation to a WorkCover claim. The sentence imposed by the original court was two years' imprisonment, wholly suspended for four years, along with an order for Crowder to perform community service. The Regulator argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the original court had made errors in exercising its sentencing discretion. The Regulator also sought leave to adduce new evidence to support the appeal.

The court examined whether the appeal against sentence was justified and whether the sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court considered the nature of the offences, the circumstances of the respondent, and the principles guiding sentencing. It was necessary to determine whether the original court had appropriately exercised its discretion and whether the sentence met the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Additionally, the court assessed whether the Regulator's residual discretion should be exercised to return the respondent to custody, given that over a year had passed since the sentence was imposed and Crowder had performed the required community service and was in employment.

The court concluded that the appeal against sentence was not successful. It found that, while the sentence might be seen as lenient, it did not reach the threshold of being manifestly inadequate. The court held that the original sentence was within the bounds of the sentencing discretion and appropriately balanced the objectives of sentencing. Furthermore, the court determined that, given the time elapsed and Crowder's compliance with the sentence, it would not exercise its residual discretion to return him to custody.

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the application by the Regulator for leave to adduce new evidence was refused. The sentence imposed by the original court was upheld.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is dismissed.

2. The application by the Regulator for leave to adduce new evidence is refused.

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.

CITATION:	Workers’ Compensation Regulator v Crowder [2023] QDC 95
PARTIES:	WORKERS’ COMPENSATION REGULATOR (appellant) v LEANNE CROWDER (respondent)
FILE NO:	BD 1341/22
DIVISION:	Criminal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal Magistrates Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	9 June 2023
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	19 April 2023 (further written submissions on 5, 6 and 7 June 2023)
JUDGE:	Rosengren DCJ
ORDER:	1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The application by the Regulator for leave to adduce new evidence is refused.
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – s 222 APPEAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEALS BY THE REGULATOR – EXERCISE OF DISCRETION – GENERALLY – where the respondent pleaded guilty to fraud and attempted fraud in relation to a WorkCover claim – where the respondent was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment wholly suspended for four years and ordered to perform community service – where there were errors in the sentencing discretion – where the sentence was manifestly inadequate CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEALS BY THE REGULATOR – RESIDUAL DISCRETION – where one year has passed since the respondent was sentenced to a wholly suspended term of imprisonment – where the respondent has performed the community service and is in employment – whether the Court should exercise its residual discretion not to return the respondent to custody Justices Act 1886 (Qld) s 222 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) s 9(1), s 9(2)(a), 9(10) Workers’ Compensation and Rehabilitation Act 2003 (Qld) s 537(5) DPP (Cth) v Gregory (2011) 211 A Crim R 147 McLean v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2021] QDC 22 R v Chmieluk; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2018] QCA 271 R v Hopper; Ex parte Attorney-General [2014] QCA 108 R v Major; Ex parte Attorney-General [2012] 1 Qd R 465 R v Osenkowski (1982) 30 SASR 212 R v Schenk; Ex parte Attorney-General (Qld) [2016] QCA 131 R v Tout [2012] QCA 296 R v Yarwood [2011] QCA 367 Teelow v Commissioner of Police [2009] 2 Qd R 489 Walia v Workers’ Compensation Regulator [2021] QDC 235
COUNSEL:	B Pitkeathly for the appellant T Ryan KC the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the appellant Ly Lawyers for the respondent