R v Wayne Francis Bailey
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Judgment
- 10 May 2004
Areas of law
Judgment analysis
AI-generated summary
It can misstate holdings, facts, or citations. Always confirm against the judgment PDF.
Facts
Following a burglary at his business premises in May 2001 where two computers were stolen, the appellant, Mr Bailey, signed a fraudulent insurance claim form prepared by his employee, Mr Steedman. The form falsely declared that five computers had been stolen. State Insurance paid a settlement valued around $22,000, with the amount fraudulently obtained being $17,840. Mr Bailey pleaded guilty to one count of using a document with intent to defraud under s229A of the Crimes Act 1961. He was sentenced in the District Court to 400 hours of community work and ordered to pay reparation of $17,840 at $20 per week. This sentence was concurrent with another 400-hour community work sentence imposed in lieu of $4,565 in outstanding fines. Mr Bailey appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive and disparate compared to his co-offender's sentence.
Held
- A significant difference in sentences between co-offenders does not constitute a legally impermissible disparity where there are significant distinguishing factors, such as one offender standing to gain financially from the crime while the other did not.
- A reparation order is inappropriate if it is not realistic given the offender's financial circumstances. An order requiring payments over a 17-year period is not realistic and should be quashed in favour of a more achievable sum.
- A maximum sentence of 400 hours community work is not manifestly excessive for a deliberate fraud resulting in a gain of $17,840, especially when the offender has prior dishonesty convictions and entered a late guilty plea, even where there is a positive pre-sentence report.
Orders
The appeal is allowed in part. The reparation order for $17,740 is quashed and replaced with an order for reparation of $3,000 to be paid at $20 per week. The appeal is otherwise dismissed, and the concurrent sentences of 400 hours community work stand.
Key passages1
An order for reparation has to be set at a level which makes it realistic given the financial circumstances of the person against whom it was made.
“we accept that the order has to be set at a level which makes it realistic given the financial circumstances of the person against whom it was made. An order which will require 17 years to achieve for repayment does not fall within that category.”
Cases mentioned in judgment
Legislation mentioned
- Crimes (Criminal Appeals) Amendment Act 2001
- Court of Appeal (Criminal) Rules 2001, r29
- Crimes Act 1961, s229A
- Sentencing Act 2003, s 55(2)
- Summary Proceedings Act, s106E
- Sentencing Act 2002, s36