R v Gregory [2004] QCA 87

Court of Appeal (Qld)|2004-03-26|Before: Davies, and Jerrard JJA and Philippides J, Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the court, each concurring as, to the order made

The applicant's wife had effected restitution of all but $35,000 of the amount taken by that applicant.

In the matter of Pearce, the actual loss was $61,000, that being the result of the fact that a number of vehicles and goods, the subject of the fraud in that case, had been recovered.

I think that those are matters that do distinguish those two decisions from the ones involved in Felton and Gourley. I agree with the orders proposed by Justice Philippides.

Counsel also referred to R v Jensen [1998] QCA 275, which involved the misappropriation of $224,000 by the offender there who was sentenced after trial to four years imprisonment with parole after 12 months. The offender had been in a position of trust in that he had powers of attorney over two senile women. However, it should be noted that in that case, the offender's wife made restitution of all but $35,000. In addition, counsel for the applicant referred to R v Pearce CA No 54 of 1999, which concerned the misappropriation of $400,000 by a person with an extensive criminal history, who was on a suspended sentence for stealing and on bail for other offences. A plea was entered in that case and it should also be noted that the shortfall there was some $60,000. An effective sentence of three and a half years without parole was not disturbed on appeal.

The Crown referred to the case of R v Gourley [2003] QCA 307, where a sentence of six years imprisonment with a recommendation after two years and three months was imposed on a person who had defrauded her employer of sums over $213,000.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (3 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (2)