Regina v Thompson [2003] NSWCCA 219

New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal

CITATION : Regina v Thompson [2003] NSWCCA 219 revised - 22/08/2003 HEARING DATE(S) : 4 August 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 4 August 2003

JUDGMENT OF : Wood CJ at CL at 15, 17; Simpson J at 1; Adams J at 16 DECISION : Leave to appeal granted; appeal dismissed

CATCHWORDS : application for leave to appeal against severity of sentence - charges of making and using a false instrument - Form 1 offences LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1900, s300 Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, s33, s50 CASES CITED : Regina v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383 PARTIES : Crown - Respondent Helen Anne Thompson - Applicant FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60146/03 COUNSEL : D Arnott - Crown GR Heathcote - Applicant SOLICITORS : SE O'Connor - Crown B Andrews - Applicant

LOWER COURT District Court JURISDICTION : LOWER COURT 01/21/3202 FILE NUMBER(S) : LOWER COURT Goldring DCJ JUDICIAL OFFICER :

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 60146/03

WOOD CJ at CL SIMPSON J ADAMS J

Monday 4 August 2003 REGINA v Helen Anne THOMPSON Judgment 1 SIMPSON J: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the asserted severity of sentences imposed upon her in the District Court on 21 October 2002, following her pleas of guilty to seven charges of making a false instrument, and seven of using a false instrument. In addition, the sentencing judge, pursuant to s33 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999, at the applicant's request, took into account a further 30 charges of making, and 30 of using, false instruments. Pursuant to s300 of the Crimes Act 1900, each offence exposed the applicant to a maximum term of imprisonment for ten years. The applicant was sentenced, on each of the counts, to imprisonment for three years with a non-parole period of eighteen months, to commence on 21 October 2002 (the date sentence was imposed). In respect of six counts she was sentenced to imprisonment for nine months, with the same commencement date, to expire on 20 July 2003. In respect of the remaining six counts on the indictment, she was sentenced to a fixed term of imprisonment for nine months, to commence on 21 July 2003, that is, at the expiration of the previously imposed fixed term. In reality, both groups of fixed term sentences are entirely subsumed within the three year sentence, and in the non-parole period specified in relation to those sentences. Pursuant to s50 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act, the sentencing judge directed that the applicant be released at the expiration of the non-parole period. Accordingly, the overall sentence is of imprisonment for three years with a non-parole period of eighteen months at which point the applicant is entitled (not eligible) to release on parole. 2 In reaching the sentence he did, the sentencing judge said that but for the early plea of guilty, he would have imposed an overall sentence of four years, but reduced this to three years, by reason of the plea. A simple mathematical calculation indicates that this was a twenty-five per cent reduction, and I would take this to be the maximum reduction available in accordance with the decision of this Court in Regina v Thomson and Houlton [2000] NSWCCA 309; (2000) 49 NSWLR 383. 3 The offences were committed over a period commencing on 25 March 1998, and ending on 8 December 1999. They were committed in the course of the applicant's employment with a company called Swift and Moore, which was an alcohol distribution company. The applicant was employed as a credit collector which involved her receiving money owed to the company. In 1999, for reasons which will later appear, the applicant found herself in financial difficulties and began altering account records and redirecting to herself (in a former married name) cheques made payable to the company. In all, the applicant defrauded the company of $144,000 in this way. As a result of her financial and personal difficulties the applicant had begun consuming alcohol heavily and had become an entrenched gambler. The money was used, in part, for family expenses, and otherwise poured into poker machines. 4 The applicant was confronted by senior employees of the company in about December 1999. She made full admissions and repaid a small amount, about $800. She was interviewed by police on 14 December 2000. She maintained her admissions, and entered pleas of guilty at the first available opportunity. There was considerable delay, which concerned the sentencing judge, in bringing the proceedings to a conclusion, and although some part of that may have been attributable to the circumstances of the applicant, the sentencing judge seems to have considered that most of the blame for the delay lay with the Crown.