R v Bird
[2004] QCA 196
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined (QCA)
- R v Bird[2004] QCA 196
- Add to List
R v Bird[2004] QCA 196
R v Bird[2004] QCA 196
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Sentence Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: | 8 June 2004 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 8 June 2004 |
JUDGES: | de Jersey CJ, Williams and Jerrard JJA agreeing |
ORDER: | Application refused |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – GENERALLY – where the applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of stealing as a servant – whether the sentence is manifestly excessive – whether the learned sentencing judge was influenced by the applicant having committed a previous similar offence |
R v Aston (No 2) [1991] 1 Qd R 375 | |
COUNSEL: | A J Kimmins for the applicant |
SOLICITORS: | Ryan and Bosscher for the applicant |
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant pleaded guilty to the offence of stealing as a servant. On the 9th of April 2003, while employed by Woolworths and acting in the capacity of Night Fill Manager, he stole $1,000.
The commission of the offence was recorded on security camera. Confronted with the allegation, he denied committing the offence. The day before he was sentenced, on 27th May 2004, he repaid the sum to Woolworths. He was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment, suspended after a period of 10 weeks, for an operational period of 18 months. He seeks leave to appeal on the ground that that sentence is manifestly excessive.
The learned sentencing judge was particularly and understandably influenced by the circumstance that, on the 17th of January 1997, the applicant had committed a similar offence, then stealing the sum of $100 from his employer.
The commission of that offence also was recorded on security camera. Again, confronted with the allegation, the applicant then denied it, although he did plead guilty before the magistrate who did not record a conviction but fined him the sum of $100.
Before the learned judge, the Crown Prosecutor submitted that both a term of imprisonment or a community based order were within range and requested the recording of a conviction.
The applicant's own counsel submitted that the range included, "a community based order all the way through to a short term of imprisonment," while submitting that any imprisonment should, however, be wholly suspended.
Counsel for the applicant submitted before us that the learned judge erred in rejecting the applicant's counsel's description of the offence as having been committed on the spur of the moment. His Honour referred to "a certain planning and a number of acts done that were necessary in the hope of covering tracks". That view was reasonably open.
After removing the contents of the requisite capsule, the applicant sorted those contents out which he was not required to do, then placed the cash on a bench, then secured a piece of paper from a filing cabinet which he then endeavoured to use to conceal his removal of the cash from the bench into his pocket. When confronted with the offence, he denied it.
I think the combination of those circumstances warranted his Honour's characterisation of the nature of the offence.
Mr Kimmins submitted that his Honour gave too much to the previous offence. But the previous offence, notwithstanding it was committed six years before, was very relevant because of the similarity of circumstances. In terms adopted by Cooper J in R v Aston (No 2) [1991] 1 Qd R 375 at 381, it illuminated the applicant's moral culpability when committing the later offence and bore on the need for deterrence. It was not a case, here, of, in effect, further sentencing the applicant for the prior offence.
The circumstance that the applicant had previously offended similarly, albeit that occurred six years before, in my view meant the learned judge was plainly entitled to impose a penalty requiring the applicant to serve an actual term of imprisonment.
Bearing in mind the maturity of his years - he was 51 years old when he committed the offence - and the gravity of this particular offence warranting special attention to the need for deterrence, I would refuse the application.
WILLIAMS JA: I would add to what has been said by the Chief Justice, that the security camera indicated that the activity resulting in the taking of $1,000 commenced at 7.56 p.m. on 9 April 2003. The applicant was spoken to by the Regional Security Manager at some undisclosed time on the following day, 10 April 2003.
On that occasion, the applicant denied the allegations made against him. Given that, the repayment of the $1,000 the day before he was sentenced some 13 days later does not carry with it any significant indication of remorse; but as the learned sentencing judge said, "there can be some moderate allowance for remorse."
In my view, in all the circumstances, the sentence imposed was within range. I agree with what the Chief Justice has said and the application should be refused.
JERRARD JA: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.