Aitken v The Queen [2002] FCAFC 274

Aitken v The Queen [2002] FCAFC 274

The sentences imposed, considered as a package including the non-parole period, were not manifestly excessive and were amply lenient given the gravity of the offending; there was no error warranting appellate intervention.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 August 2002
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
['sentencing' 'theft' 'make and Use False Instrument' 'white Collar Crime']
['criminal Law'] ['sentencing' 'theft' 'make and Use False Instrument' 'white Collar Crime']

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Sentence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive' "Whether sufficient weight was given to the appellant's subjective circumstances and early plea of guilty" "Whether the sentencing judge erred regarding the appellant's depression and its relevance to deterrence" 'Whether the judge erred in not differentiating between counts' 'Whether the judge erroneously found the Tretheweys had lost virtually all their life savings' "Whether the appellant's unpaid charitable work was properly considered"]

Ratio Decidendi

The sentences imposed, considered as a package including the non-parole period, were not manifestly excessive and were amply lenient given the gravity of the offending; there was no error warranting appellate intervention.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed. Time served is to count.']