The Queen v Reeves[1997] QCA 331

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA

McPHERSON JA

de JERSEY J 

CA No 296 of 1997 

THE QUEEN 

v. 

LOGAN BRUCE REEVES

BRISBANE

DATE 29/08/97

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA:  The applicant was sentenced to an effective term of five years' imprisonment on two indictments to which he pleaded guilty. On the first which was an ex-officio indictment he pleaded to the following offences, that is to say, five break enter and steal offences, two of receiving, two of unlawful possession of a motor vehicle and one of stealing.  The effective sentence for all those offences was three years. 

On the second indictment he pleaded to two counts of threatening violence and two of wilful damage. The circumstances of the offences in the second indictment are that the applicant met the complainant who was a married woman, then separated from her husband, through a dating or introduction agency.  He became emotionally attached to her.  The sentiment was not reciprocated, or certainly not to the same degree.  The complainant managed after some difficulty to end the acquaintance and she has since returned to her husband.

The applicant was not content with this termination of his hopes and resolved to avenge himself on the complainant.  On 22 August 1996 the applicant told the complainant he could not live without her and he threatened that he would blow his own head off.  Statements to that effect were repeated over a number of days, in the course of which he attempted to get in touch with her at her work. 

On 25 August 1996 the complainant was visiting her husband at his home.  Their cars were parked outside his house.  The applicant drove past in his vehicle and his passenger fired two shots at the two parked vehicles using for that purpose a Winchester number 4 shotgun.  Holes were later found in the husband's vehicle. The applicant then drove on to the complainant's home where a shot, or perhaps it was three shots, were fired at the garage door and front door of her house.  Those represented the two wilful damage charges, and no doubt the threat to blow off his head constituted the offence of threatening violence that was the subject of one of the four counts in the second indictment.

As to the other threat the circumstances in which it came to light are these. The applicant confessed to police his responsibility for these events after some investigations had been made by them.  The police had earlier spoken to two of his friends or flatmates, who directed the police to a part of the garden where incriminating material was buried, or had been buried by the applicant.  In the course of the information passed on by them they reported that the appellant had told them that he had said to the complainant that she had better "watch her back", or he would get his friends to visit her and they would kill or at any rate hurt her.  This appears to have been the subject of the other or second count of threatening violence in the second indictment.

The maximum penalty for that offence was only two years, but the maximum for wilful damage in the circumstances of this matter was three years.  The Judge, as I said, imposed a sentence of two years for all four offences which one may think was not unreasonable having regard to the gravity of the conduct involved. 

The concurrent sentences for those four offences are, in my opinion, well within the range for the total criminality involved in the four offences in question.  The damages caused are of the order of $800, but it is really the danger involved in the commission of the offences that presents the serious aspect.

As for the property offences in the ex-officio indictment, the learned sentencing Judge imposed an effective three year sentence for those 10 or so offences on that indictment.  The sentences imposed were, again, to be served concurrently but all together cumulatively upon the two year term on the second indictment.  It was plainly open to the Court to make those two sets of sentences cumulative, and no point is taken about that.  They relate to an entirely different series of offences and it is not, so far as I can see, really possible to argue that three years was not an appropriate penalty for committing them.

The applicant is a man of 33 years of age.  He has a very lengthy criminal history.  His upbringing has, from what one can see, been a particularly deprived one.  He has spent practically all his life since the age of 16 in prison or detention of some kind.  He is a man who is described of dull to normal intelligence, and he has, it may be partly because of his upbringing, a poor control over his impulses.

The record of convictions shows offences of many different kinds including, unfortunately, a number which involved violence, for example in relation to throwing explosives or being in possession of explosives.  The past history of the applicant really does not argue for any particularly merciful recommendation or other matter of that kind, and I do not think that the Judge was required to make it.

The submission on behalf of the applicant on this hearing is essentially that there were some factors which ought to have been given greater weight by the Judge than appears from the sentencing remarks that he made.  One was that there was a delay of about a year in bringing these proceedings.  That, it appears to be accepted, was entirely the responsibility of the prosecution and not of the applicant.  He was prepared to plead at an earlier stage.  It is, however, a little difficult to attach much importance to that factor.  It is true that during the period he was waiting he was in some jeopardy or perhaps turmoil of mind; but it must also be said that with such a long period of his life spent in gaol the duration of one year during which he had to wait seems to represent about the longest period he has spent out of gaol.

Another factor that was emphasised to us was that the applicant had assisted the police by giving a name in relation to one or more of the property offences to which I have referred, and he was entitled to credit for that.  I must say, however, for my part, he seems to have involved someone quite unnecessarily in the commission of the offence or offences on the indictment dealing with wilful damage.  He was perhaps entitled to some consideration for the circumstances mentioned, but it must also be said that his conduct overall was very serious.

The only other matter that, in my opinion, really requires consideration is the security classification into which he will be put when he goes to serve the sentence.  He will, we were told, be classified as a maximum security prisoner.  Precisely what is involved in that state of affairs is a little difficult to say, but inquiries made of the correctional service office or the manager of the centre has led to its being said that the principal disadvantage will be that the applicant will have only limited access to programs, and perhaps also to jobs, that are available to others. 

The disadvantage that results from limited access to programs is, it appears, that if he does not participate in some of these programs it may to some extent count against him before the parole board.  It is a fact perhaps to be taken into account; but I must say that I do not find it one which is of such significance that one would be disposed to alter the sentence in this case to reflect that consideration.  Indeed, in the proceedings below the learned sentencing Judge was informed, inaccurately as it appears to have turned out, that if the applicant was in a maximum security section of the prison he would not be available for parole at all.  That does not seem to be correct.

At the time of committing the offences with which we are concerned here the applicant was on parole for offences previously committed in Victoria, and that is a matter that is bound to be taken into account against him.  It is, of course, expected that he will, at some time in the future, be returned to Victoria for sentencing in respect of the offences for which he was paroled or perhaps to complete his term of imprisonment there.  That means that he faces a further period of imprisonment when he is released from incarceration in Queensland.  No doubt, however, when that takes place the sentencing Court in Victoria will bring into account, as Courts usually do in those cases, the prison terms that he has been serving here in respect of the local offences, so as to ensure that the sentences that he ultimately has to serve both here and there are not crushing to the point of oppression.

The applicant is someone who, on everything we see, has had an unfortunate life and one wishes that his tendency to commit offences would come to an end.  I am afraid, however, that, for as long as he continues to engage in criminal conduct of the serious kind that we see in one, or perhaps it is both, of the indictments here, he is liable to spend more and more time in prison.

In all the circumstances I do not think that the cumulative sentence of five years for all these offences, some of which, as I have said more than once, were attended by circumstances of considerable seriousness, is such as to justify our interfering with the penalty imposed by the Judge below.  I would therefore refuse the application for leave to appeal.

PINCUS JA:  I agree.

de JERSEY J:  I agree.

PINCUS JA:  The application is refused.