SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND 

[1]  WILLIAMS JA: On 18 December 2006 the applicant was sentenced to nine years imprisonment, with eligibility for parole on 18 December 2010 after pleading guilty to multiple burglaries and other offences.  More detail of the offences in question are set out in the reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA

[2] On 16 April 2007 he lodged with the Court an application for an extension of time within which to appeal against sentence.  The grounds stated in that application were as follows:

"(i)I originally received advice from my lawyers that I had no grounds of appeal.  I have since researched the precedents and believe my sentence was manifestly excessive in the circumstances. 

(ii)I was also informed that I could not appeal after 28 days had elapsed from the sentence.  I have only recently been advised I can apply for an extension of time."

[3] No other explanation has been provided by the applicant for the delay in seeking to appeal against the sentence imposed.  Given the grounds stated there could be no good reason shown to account for the delay unless it could be demonstrated that the sentence was in fact manifestly excessive when compared to other sentences which the applicant has described as "precedents".

[4] As is demonstrated by the reasons for judgment of Jerrard JA, which I have had the advantage of reading, that has not been established.  Given the extent of the applicant's offending the sentence imposed was clearly well within the appropriate range.

[5] It therefore follows that the applicant has not shown good reason accounting for the delay and otherwise has not established that it is in the interests of justice to grant the extension sought: R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667.

[6] It follows that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed.

[7]  JERRARD JA: On 18 December 2006 Mr Cameron pleaded guilty to 40 counts of offences against property, and under s 189 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) had a far larger number which were taken into consideration when he was sentenced.  He admitted guilt on a total of 704 offences against property, of which approximately 500 were offences of burglary.  The total identifiable loss of property to complainants exceeded $1.1 million.  These offences were committed from on or about 4 January 1997 up to 25 October 2004, when Mr Cameron was aged from    17 to 25.  He was 27 when sentenced, and the learned sentencing judge imposed a global head sentence of nine years imprisonment in respect of all offences charged on indictment, and where the maximum penalty exceeded nine years, which were for offences of burglary or arson.  The judge set the date on which Mr Cameron was eligible to apply for parole as 18 December 2010 (after four years in custody).  Mr Cameron contends the sentence is manifestly excessive, and asks for an extension of time in which to apply for leave to appeal.

[8] In R v Tait [1999] 2 Qd R 667 this Court held that it will examine whether there is any good reason shown to account for a delay in applying for leave to appeal against a sentence, and will consider overall whether it is in the interest of justice to grant an extension sought.  That process may involve some assessment of whether the appeal seems to be a viable one, and the Court will attempt to make some provisional assessment of the strength of the applicant’s appeal and to take that into account in deciding whether it is a fit case for granting an extension.

[9] Mr Cameron’s application is the third matter to come before this Court in very recent times, in which the Court has had occasion to consider the appropriate sentence for offenders of differing backgrounds, who committed a series of offences against property.  One was R v MJ Taylor [2007] QCA 214, where this Court allowed an application and substituted a sentence of two years imprisonment, with a suspension after eight months on some counts, coinciding with the parole release date after eight months on other counts.  That 22 year old applicant had admitted   22 offences against property, a number of them being committed on bail, and had caused a total loss of approximately $9,119.  He had volunteered the commission of most offences, and had a limited prior history.  On the other hand, in R v Bryant [2007] QCA 247, this Court, while allowing an application, imposed a head sentence of four years imprisonment, with a parole eligibility date after 18 months, on a 35 year old offender, who admitted nine offences against property causing a loss of about $6,500 to different complainants, and most of which were committed when on bail or on probation.  That offender had a very long history of offences against property, and was accurately described by the learned sentencing judge as a serious and serial property offender, and likely to be a confirmed recidivist.  Mr Cameron has offended against property on a vastly greater scale than Mr Bryant, and even without any prior criminal history, should have expected to receive substantially more than a four year head sentence.

[10] Mr Cameron has a criminal history which records that he was first convicted of an offence of breaking and entering a dwelling house on 14 May 1997, which was some four months or so after this long series of offending began.  Thereafter he appeared on occasions in courts, to be dealt with for various offences against property or drugs, and escaped detection on this far more persisting offending for many years.  His other significant court appearances had included one on 16 July 1998 for receiving stolen property and possession of a knife in a public place, and an appearance on 22 October 1999 in the Brisbane District Court, when he was dealt with for offences of dangerous operation of a vehicle (two offences), offences against property, and the possession of drugs.  He was imprisoned for two years and six months, with 198 days spent in custody deemed as time already served.  Then he appeared in the Southport Magistrates Court on 26 August 2003, and was imprisoned for six months, in respect of nine offences against property, one of possessing drugs, and various breaches of bail.

[11] A psychologist’s report put before the learned sentencing judge records that after release from jail in the year 2000 on parole (presumably, after serving part of the District Court sentence of two years and six months jail imposed on 22 October 1999) Mr Cameron made an effort to upgrade his formal education by attending night adult education classes.  In 2001 he achieved a law abiding life-style, acting as the marketing manager for a V8 Super-car racing identity.  Mr Cameron had then contemplated buying real-estate and becoming a developer, but had been using amphetamines to enable him to cope with his strenuous workload, and he ultimately returned to a life of addiction to drugs and stealing property.  It is interesting to note that in the lengthy schedule presented to the learned sentencing judge, describing the dates of his extraordinary number of offences, there is a break from on or about June 1998 until on or about 11 May 2002.  Curiously, that re-start coincides with an appearance in the Southport Magistrates Court on 15 May 2002, in respect of some “old” charges for offences committed in April 1998. 

[12] The scale of Mr Cameron’s offending makes it very difficult for him to argue that a sentence of nine years coupled with a parole recommendation – he was not declared to have committed serious violent offences – is manifestly excessive.  In R v Cook [1995] QCA 633 that offender pleaded guilty to 166 offences against property, many being of burglary or attempted burglary, and this Court upheld a sentence of 10 years imprisonment, with parole recommended after four years.  That offender had been granted parole in respect of earlier offences when offending, and had then re-offended when released on bail.  The property that person stole or damaged, belonging to others, exceeded $500,000 in value, and he used the proceeds of his offences to enjoy a lavish lifestyle on the Gold Coast.

[13] Mr Cameron was on probation from mid-May 1997 until mid-May 1999, and the schedule of the charges presented to the learned sentencing judge shows that in that period he committed 72 offences against property.  He would also have been on parole for a period of the years 2000 and 2001, but the schedule of offences does not suggest any offences committed in that period.  It appears that at his choice, when away from drugs, he can avoid offending and perform well enough in the community.  He was on bail for 18 months after he confessed to these 700 odd offences, and did not re-offend: but then he failed to appear for sentence in mid 2006, and was arrested on a warrant.

[14] Mr Cameron chose to reveal all of the details of the almost eight years of offending behaviour, when arrested in late 2004.  The respondent referred the Court on this application to the judgment in R v Burns [2004] QCA 437, where that applicant – a co-offender with Mr Cameron – had pleaded guilty to a course of criminal conduct in respect of which he admitted committing at least 192 offences against property between 3 September 2002 (when he was almost 16 and a half) until 9 May 2003, when he was a little over 17.  Mr Burns had been sentenced to six years imprisonment with parole recommended after serving two years, and 470 days of pre-sentence custody declared to be time already served; this Court reduced the head sentence from six years to five, but left the recommendation for “post prison community based release” at two years.

[15] That applicant was a much younger co-offender, and this Court said of Mr Cameron in its judgment in R v Burns that Mr Cameron (then 25 at the time of the offences) was the acknowledged ringleader in respect of Mr Burns and a third co-offender, an 18 year old.  The offences committed by Mr Burns (and Mr Cameron) involved the theft of property worth $390,000, and this Court described the property stolen in those burglaries as consisting typically of money and easily disposed of items such as mobile phones, jewellery, cameras, laptops, CD’s, small electrical goods, and other personal items including credit cards.

[16] Mr Burns had been arrested in 2003, following a police chase, given bail and then re-offended.  He was again arrested and released on bail and again continued to offend, and his offending, shocking as it was, was much less than that of Mr Cameron.  Mr Cameron was older, the leader, stole property of a total value of almost three times of what Mr Burns stole, and committed more than three times as many offences.  Mr Cameron cannot expect to receive a sentence of any less than close to twice that imposed on Mr Burns, or more.  Mr Cameron stressed to this Court in his argument the period on bail without re-offending, but the sentencing judge took that into account with the moderate head sentence and parole recommendation.  Mr Cameron had to expect a lengthy term of actual imprisonment, with so many offences.

[17]  Mr Cameron clearly has the ability to do better than live by stealing, and the psychologists who assessed him described him as a complex individual, for whom the prognosis was guarded.  No doubt a Community Corrections Board will carefully consider whether and when his release to the community involves only an acceptable level of risk that he will return to living by theft.  I would dismiss the application.

[18]  MULLINS J:  I agree with Jerrard JA.