The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed an appeal by Andrew Neville Hodgetts, 40, who was  sentenced to five years’ jail in October last year after pleading guilty to nine counts of computer related fraud.

Hodgetts was the finance and business manager at the Launceston Motor Group when he created false documents, forged signatures and deposited funds into his personal accounts between November 2011 and February 2016. 

He had appealed the prison sentence and the non-parole period of three years arguing it was manifestly excessive.

Chief Justice Alan Blow handed down the decision on the appeal in Hobart on Thursday.

He said Hodgetts committed the crimes because he and his family “were living beyond their means.”

“He overspent on food, dining out, house renovations, clothes, holidays and general living expenses,” Chief Justice Blow said.

In the unanimous decision by the three judges, the Chief Justice rejected a submission by Tim Ellis SC that the judges were “a small coterie” who sit in judgement of each other and were prone to the fallibilities of “groupthink and protecting each other’s decisions.”

“In my experience, all the judges of this court have been consistently conscientious in hearing and determining appeals from their colleague’s decisions and appeals relating to the conduct of trials,” Chief Justice Blow said.

“Of course I acknowledge that I am one of the judges whose conscientiousness has been called into question by Mr Ellis SC.

“However, members of the public are able to make their own assessments as to whether the judges of this court are appropriately conscientious.

“All trials and other hearings are conducted in public.”

Chief Justice Blow said it was undeniable but not surprising that appeals were rejected.

“It is an undeniable fact that in this state the great majority of appeals by defendants who are aggrieved by their sentences are unsuccessful,” he said. “That is not surprising.

“Every convicted person is entitled to appeal and to contend that his or her sentence was mainfestly excessive. They have nothing to lose by instituting them.”

Justice Helen Wood said the structure of the court meant appeal judges were also sentencing judges.

”This means they have an active awareness of the broad limits of the sentencing discretion enabling them to balance competing considerations and arrive at a just sentence for the particular case,” she said.