R v Slade[2003] QCA 191

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

THE PRESIDENT:  Justice Holmes will deliver her reasons first.

HOLMES J:  The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a head sentence of seven and a half years' imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after three years.  That sentence was imposed on each of four counts of breaking and entering premises and stealing, one count of breaking and entering a dwelling with intent, one count of breaking and entering into a building with intent in the night, one count of being in a dwelling and stealing and one count of entering premises and stealing.

Lesser concurrent sentences were imposed in respect of two counts of receiving, four counts of fraud, seven counts of stealing, six counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and one count of attempted fraud.  A further 424 offences, almost all of dishonesty, were taken into account pursuant to Section 189 of the Penalties and Sentences Act.  More than half of those involved using stolen credit cards to obtain goods and services, but there are also some 62 counts of breaking into motor vehicles and stealing and 48 of receiving.

In all, 453 offences were committed between June 2000 and October 2001, involving property of a value in the order of $200,000.

The applicant was first apprehended by police in relation to these charges on 4 October 2000 as a result of the use of a credit card stolen from the mail service and received by him.  He was issued with a notice to appear on that occasion but continued to commit offences and was apprehended again on 25 April 2001 and released on bail.  He committed further offences, was arrested on 17 July 2001 and again given bail.  He continued to commit offences and was remanded in custody on 23 October 2001.

The learned sentencing Judge made this observation, which seems to me both succinct and accurate:

"Between your release on bail on 25 April 2001 and your arrest on 23 October 2001 you engaged in a staggering orgy of dishonesty which involved committing offences, and sometimes many offences, on the one day on almost a daily basis over that period of six months."

In the applicant's favour, he admitted involvement in this very large number of offences and was cooperative with police in the clearing up of them.  He has provided assistance to police, at what seems to have been a relatively low level, in respect of other matters.

He said that he used the proceeds of his offending to finance an addiction to methylamphetamine.  He was 27 years of age at the time of sentence.  He had served in the Army and it was said that he had started using drugs at the age of 24. 

In respect of one offence, he was charged with his de facto partner who also faced other charges.  They are the parents of a small child.

The applicant has a criminal history that includes previous convictions for dishonesty.  On 31 August 1998 he was placed on probation in the Magistrates Court for one charge of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, two of receiving, and 18 charges of fraud.

On 12 February 1999, he pleaded guilty to 13 counts of dishonesty in the Brisbane District Court and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment suspended after five months, with an operational period of three years, and was also dealt with for breaching the probation order imposed in the Magistrates Court by way of a wholly suspended sentence of three months' imprisonment.

In September 1999, he was sentenced in the Southport Magistrates Court to 12 months' imprisonment, wholly suspended on a fraud committed in late 1998.  The offences for which he was sentenced on 26 April 2002 all breached those three suspended sentences.

The learned sentencing Judge ordered that he serve the whole of the suspended sentences concurrently.  162 days of presentence custody was declared imprisonment already served.

Mr Copley for the Crown in his written outline relied on some comparable sentences.  In The Queen v. Frederick John Savo, CA334 of 1994, the 29 year old applicant pleaded guilty to some 50 offences including breaking, entering, stealing, housebreaking and burglary.  He had a long criminal history involving a number of offences of dishonesty.  The property stolen exceeded $68,000 in value.  He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment without any recommendation, the learned sentencing Judge saying that he made allowance for the plea of guilty and cooperation and other difficulties experienced by the applicant in imposing a head sentence which would otherwise would have been as long as 10 years' imprisonment.  His application for leave to appeal was refused.

In The Queen v. Terrence Anthony Robinson, CA534 of 1994, the 24 year old applicant was sentenced on a plea of guilty for 91 offences including 10 burglaries and 35 offences of housebreaking, with the value of the property stolen of the order of $80,000.  The applicant there had previously served eight years' imprisonment for offences including aggravated burglary and intentionally causing serious injury. 

He was sentenced to seven and a half years' imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after two and a half years.  He was a heroin addict, he had cooperated with police.  The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

In The Queen v. Jody Maree Whelan, CA430 of 1997, a 30 year old applicant had been sentenced to nine years' imprisonment after pleading guilty to some 40 counts of dishonesty including breaking entering and stealing involving an amount of property worth about $160,000.  She had a lengthy criminal history with a number of offences of dishonesty. 

She was a drug addict and had three dependent children aged 6. 3 and 2.  Her sentence was reduced to one of seven  years, but a recommendation for parole after three years was not disturbed.

His Honour Justice Dowsett, who delivered the judgment of the Court, observed that a range of seven to 10 years might be appropriate for cases involving a cluster of offences, but he pointed out that much would depend on the previous history of the accused and on the degree of cooperation with the police.

Having regard to those cases, the sentence in this case seems to me within the appropriate range for such an extraordinary number of offences involving as it did some $200,000 worth of property.  Clearly drug addiction had a good deal to do with the offences, but the applicant had already had the benefit of a good deal of leniency in the past and it is significant that all of these offences entailed breaches of suspended sentences and in most cases, bail. 

His Honour expressly made allowance for the applicant's cooperation in various ways:  in the head sentence, by the recommendation for consideration for early release, and in making the suspended sentences concurrent.

I would dismiss the application for leave to appeal.

THE PRESIDENT:  I agree.

WILLIAMS JA:  I agree.

THE PRESIDENT:  That is the order of the Court.  The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.