R v Hancox [2006] QCA 333

Court of Appeal (Qld)|2006-09-01|Before: McMurdo P, Jerrard JA and Wilson JSeparate reasons for judgment of each, member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

The applicant today in his written and oral submissions emphasises that his wife had battled bone cancer and that his 17-year-old son has had to cope with the loss of his mother and then the applicant's imprisonment. Understandably, he would like to be able to support his son in the community at this time. He contends in his written submissions that he would be of more use to the community outside prison and asks for a suspended sentence.

An unfortunate result of the applicant's serious breach of trust as an employee in committing these offences is that his teenage son, who is of an age and in circumstances where he would benefit from the guidance and support of his father especially following the tragic and recent loss of his mother, is without that fatherly support. Mr Hancox has only himself to blame. His offending was calculated. It continued over a lengthy period (more than five years) and involved a great deal of money. There has been no explanation as to where the defrauded moneys went. The only matters in the applicant's favour were that he had no prior convictions; that he pleaded guilty and, to some significant extent, cooperated with the authorities; that he had not committed further offences since and he had commendably nursed his wife and supported his son through his wife's lengthy, debilitating and ultimately terminal illness. The extent and nature of the applicant's offending warranted a salutary deterrent penalty.

It is supported by many decisions of this Court, for example, the case of Spalding. Spalding pleaded guilty to similar offences and, like this applicant, was a paymaster who abused his possession of trust as employee. Spalding received $222,378 and the Tax Office was wrongly paid $80,495 so that the total amount misappropriated was $302,873. Spalding, like this offender, was a mature man with no prior convictions. He had a nine-year-old child. He fully cooperated with the authorities; pleaded guilty at an early stage by way of an ex officio indictment; showed remorse; had a drinking problem and matters raised in a psychologist's report included that he felt victimised in the workplace and that this was a factor leading to his offending. This Court determined, however, that Spalding's criminal behaviour warranted a substantial custodial sentence as a personal and general deterrent and that the sentence of six years' imprisonment with a recommendation for post-prison community-based release after two years was not excessive.

Spalding clearly demonstrates that the present applicant's sentence of imprisonment for five and a half years with a parole eligibility recommendation after 21 months was also well within the appropriate range. It was certainly not manifestly excessive.

The prosecutor at sentence submitted that a six-year term of imprisonment was appropriate, relying on the comparable case of R v. Spalding [2002] QCA 538.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (4 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)