The Queen v Faramus[1999] QCA 167

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA

DERRINGTON J

CHESTERMAN J

CA No 30 of 1999

THE QUEEN

v.

WAYNE PETER FARAMUSApplicant

BRISBANE

DATE 11/05/99

JUDGMENT

PINCUS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. Mr Faramus, the applicant, has represented himself today and has also assisted the Court with some written material which has been presented.

The initiating document was drawn so as to constitute an appeal against conviction as well as an application for leave to appeal against sentence. But the grounds stated in the arguments advanced make it clear that it is only the sentences imposed which are attacked.

The applicant was sentenced on pleas of guilty to imprisonment for housebreaking and stealing and other offences. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment for the housebreaking and stealing and to lesser terms of imprisonment for the other offences. There was no recommendation for early parole and that is a point of which Mr Faramus makes particular complaint.

The written argument raises a number of matters but principally says that the applicant has turned over a new leaf and that he has children to care for. The applicant has told us that he was formerly an addict, being addicted to heroin, and his written argument says that he was led by his addiction to commit offences and that he has beaten his addiction. In oral argument he has emphasised his desire to be engaged in some rehabilitative activity which is not available, or not satisfactory, in prison.

A complaint to police and subsequent investigations caused them to search the applicant's home. Property was identified there which had been obtained in three offences of breaking and entering at the Gold Coast. The applicant, when interviewed, admitted those offences being three of those charges and he also told the police about other offences he had committed. Up to that point the applicant had admitted having committed 13 offences, being seven breaking and entering, four receiving and two of other kinds of dishonesty.

The police found a sedan at the applicant's address which had been stolen from Victoria about a fortnight earlier. The applicant told police he was keeping the vehicle for another person and that he had used it as transport to commit his offences. He was charged with receiving the vehicle.

He was then bailed and he used this freedom, the freedom accorded to him, to commit a further breaking and entering offence. He was again arrested and bailed and while on bail committed a further receiving offence. The value of the unrecovered stolen property and damaged property was about $24,000. I cannot find in the record a statement of the total value of the property stolen.

The applicant was born on 3 February 1961 and his criminal career began when he was 16. He was convicted in 1977 of a number of offences of breaking, entering and stealing. Since 1977, in 11 subsequent years, he has appeared in Court in relation to offences of varying degrees of seriousness being generally offences of dishonesty. He has received a number of sentences of imprisonment, imposed in the years 1979, 1981, 1984, 1988, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993 and 1995, and then of course the most recent sentence. It seems likely that but for the sentences of imprisonment which put him, so to speak, out of action, the applicant would have been tempted to commit further offences. His longest period of imprisonment was nine years for armed robbery in 1984 and two years cumulative for another offence on that occasion.

For about the last 20 years the applicant has been a very persistent offender and he must have caused a considerable amount of anguish and hardship to his victims, a point which was made to him from the bench today. The applicant says he had a difficult upbringing and that he is at a stage of his life where he knows he can obtain no benefit from being incarcerated. He argues that he may not, because of his circumstances and history, get parole early. That, in my view, is not a matter about which we can speculate. It depends entirely upon the policy of the parole authorities at the relevant time, subject to ministerial directions which may be given under the statute.

As for benefit from being incarcerated, it has to be kept in mind by the applicant that imprisonment has purposes other than benefiting the offender.  One of the purposes is to punish offenders, to discourage them and others. Under the sentences imposed by the learned primary Judge the applicant will, at best, be released after having served three years. The chance of his being released may of course increase if he is determined to adhere to the path of strict rectitude in gaol which he said he is presently following. If he is able to reform himself permanently while serving his sentence it will be in my view a considerable personal triumph. The applicant expresses anxiety about his two children, whose mother has deserted them and it is to be hoped that this will give him an additional incentive to obtain parole, to look after them. He asked for this Court's cooperation in that endeavour; but it is impossible to say that the punishment imposed was, in the circumstances, too harsh and the application clearly must be refused. The application against conviction should also be dismissed.

DERRINGTON J: I agree.

CHESTERMAN J: I agree.

PINCUS JA: The orders of the Court will be appeal against conviction dismissed, application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.