The Queen v Mansfield[1998] QCA 244

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ

DEMACK J

HELMAN J

CA No 91 of 1998

THE QUEEN

v.

IAN RONALD MANSFIELD Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 18/06/98

JUDGMENT

HELMAN J:  The applicant came before the District Court in Southport on 20 March this year and pleaded guilty to 20 counts of offences of dishonesty on one indictment (two counts of stealing, eight of forgery including three with circumstances of aggravation, six of uttering, and four of misappropriation of property), five counts of offences of dishonesty on a second indictment (three of obtaining goods by false pretences, one of forgery, and one of uttering) and one count of misappropriation of property on a third indictment. There were then 26 offences in all. The learned sentencing judge sentenced him to imprisonment for six years on each count of misappropriation of property and to imprisonment for three years on each other count. His Honour added a recommendation that the applicant be eligible for release on parole after having served imprisonment for two years.

The applicant contends that the sentences are manifestly excessive.

All but two of the offences were committed in a period of a little over 13 months beginning 20 June 1996; the references to the year 1006 in counts 21, 22 and 23 of the first indictment are clearly misprints. The two offences not committed in the period I have mentioned were offences of obtaining goods by false pretences committed in September 1990 and February 1995.

It was conceded on behalf of the applicant that a head sentence of imprisonment for six years was within the range applicable to this case. The complaint that is made about the sentences is that the recommendation concerning parole was not generous enough. That is because, it was argued, his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the combined effect of two factors:  the applicant's timely plea of guilty and his co-operation with investigating police officers in making a full confession and giving details of the complicity of his accomplices. Had those factors been given the weight they warranted the recommendation concerning parole would have been that the applicant be eligible for release after having served imprisonment for 16 months, it was submitted. Particular reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in R v. Thompson (1994) 76 A. Crim. R. 75.

The two counts of offences which were not committed in the period of just over 13 months that I have mentioned relate to the passing of valueless cheques for goods with a value of about $146 in total. The remaining counts concerned a sophisticated fraud involving the forging of identity documents in order to open bank accounts in false names, perpetrated by the applicant and at least one accomplice. Bank cheques made out for small sums were purchased and altered by computer to show larger amounts. The cheques were lodged in the false accounts, thus inflating the balance which was subsequently withdrawn. In one instance the amended bank cheque was used to purchase goods, in another a Visa card was obtained using false identity documents. The card was subsequently operated on by the accused.

Over the period I have mentioned the fraud returned just over half a million dollars, of which the accused admitted to having received approximately $100,000. The offences were motivated entirely by greed rather than by need. The applicant asserted that the bulk of his share was expended on a girlfriend.

The applicant gave a comprehensive interview to the investigating police officers and a statement implicating the principal offender. He indicated a preparedness to give evidence, if necessary, against that accomplice, but he did not avail himself of the procedure laid down in s.13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, which came into operation on 1 July last year.

In sentencing the applicant, his Honour took into account the large sum which was the subject of the fraud, the fact that none of the money had been recovered, the fact that it was a complex and sophisticated operation involving the use of computers and scanners, the fact that the applicant played a key part in the operation, and the fact that greed was the motive and not need. His Honour also took into account the applicant's previous criminal history, which showed that he had been dealt with in Southport in 1985 on 13 charges of forgery, 13 charges of uttering, and one charge of stealing, and had had fines and restitution orders made against him. Again in 1985 at Southport, he was dealt with on 21 charges of forgery, 21 charges of uttering, one charge of false pretences, one charge of entering a dwelling house with intent and one charge of stealing; conditional release orders and restitution orders were made, and he was subjected to a good behaviour bond for those offences. In 1991 at Coolangatta he was dealt with for three offences of false pretences.

The applicant is a mature man, having been born 5 August 1954.

In support of his client's application, Mr East referred us to the way in which the Court dealt with the appeal by Thompson, to which I have referred. But it does not follow from that case, in my view, that in every case where there has been co-operation the same calculations must necessarily follow. What is important is that in the end the sentence imposed upon an offender and the recommendation for parole that is made properly reflect the criminality of the matters before the sentencing judge.

In this case, there was a fraud concerning a very large sum of money, it was committed by a mature man who had a criminal history of some significance, and he was accorded substantial consideration in the parole recommendation. In the circumstances, I can detect no error in the way in which his Honour exercised his sentencing discretion and I should refuse the application.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  I agree.

DEMACK J:  I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The application is refused.