Faker’s lost appeal

THERE was “no basis” in which it could be considered that Townsville cancer faker Lucy Wieland’s sentence was unreasonable, a judge has found.

Court documents have now revealed why Judge John Coker dismissed her appeal.

Wieland, 28, pleaded guilty to four fraud offences, forgery and possessing restricted drugs and was sentenced to two years’ jail after she spent five months lying to the Townsville community about her fake terminal ovarian cancer diagnosis. As per the sentence, Wieland only has to serve six months behind bars.

In total, Wieland scammed more than $70,000 through a sophisticated Gofundme scam.

She launched an appeal into her sentence on August 25 claiming it was manifestly excessive. Her appeal was not based on the two-year head sentence, rather it claimed that with her mitigating factors, including her motivation to offend, pregnancy and offer to pay restitution, that a more reduced time in actual custody was appropriate.

In his judgment, Judge Coker said he found the original sentencing magistrate gave appropriate weight to all these things.

He said no material submitted to the court noted the source of the restitution funds Wieland made available.

“Certainly, there is a need for some proper benefit to be extended as a result of restitution being paid but there is also a very real need to accept that offenders should never be able to buy their way out of a sentence that properly reflects the degree of criminality in any offending,” Judge Coker wrote in his judgment. “With there being no evidence as to the source of the funds used to effect restitution, it is impossible to make any real assessment as to the degree or level of the remorse shown by the appellant and while the payment of restitution is a proper matter to consider by way of mitigation, the weight is lessened.”

In regard to Wieland’s mental health, Judge Coker noted comments from a psychological report that said attempting to determine a diagnosis retrospectively was “innately difficult” and depended on Wieland self reporting and that within a context in which there were criminal charges there was the possibility of “untruthfulness and self-serving statements”.

“Any suggestion that the learned magistrate did not adequately address the issue of the appellant’s mental health is not sustainable,” he said.

Judge Coker also dismissed the claim that Wieland’s pregnancy was not properly considered when determining her sentence.

Wieland will be released on parole on February 4 next year.