R v Pullos
[2008] QCA 336
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 Pullos[2008] QCA 336
- Add to List
R v Pullos[2008] QCA 336
R v Pullos[2008] QCA 336
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
PARTIES: | |
FILE NO/S: | DC No 1984 of 2008 |
Court of Appeal | |
PROCEEDING: | Sentence Application |
ORIGINATING COURT: | |
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON: | 27 October 2008 |
DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
HEARING DATE: | 27 October 2008 |
JUDGES: | de Jersey CJ, White AJA and McMeekin J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made |
ORDER: | Application dismissed |
CATCHWORDS: | CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – where the applicant was sentenced to three years imprisonment for aggravated fraud, and concurrent six month terms for receiving and fraud – where the applicant pleaded guilty – where the sentence was structured with a parole release date set so that the applicant would notionally serve one-third of the three year term – where the applicant had a substantial criminal history – whether the applicant was given adequate credit for his pleas of guilty and cooperation with police R v Rhoden [2002] QCA 415, considered |
COUNSEL: | The applicant appeared on his own behalf M J Copley for the respondent |
SOLICITORS: | The appellant appeared on his own behalf Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent |
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: When he was aged 44 years, the applicant, who appears in person today, was sentenced to three years imprisonment for aggravated fraud and concurrent six month terms for receiving and fraud. He had pleaded guilty to the offences.
The applicant committed the fraud over a period of 10 months in the year 2007. He sold stolen scrap metal on some 49 occasions to recyclers. He and an accomplice thereby obtained more than $34,000. The applicant admitted to police investigators that he personally received $11,500 of that. The applicant had gone to the trouble of registering a business name for these purposes. The count of receiving related to a stolen drill, which the applicant pawned.
The applicant had previously accumulated a substantial criminal history for drug offences, and for dishonesty offences in relation to property. It covers four pages of the record book, apart from an appalling 13 page traffic history. He has previously been actually imprisoned on a number of occasions. His criminal history began in 1999.
The sentencing Judge structured the sentence so that the applicant would notionally serve one-third of the three year term. In fact, the Judge fixed a parole release date only two months ahead of the sentencing, which occurred on the 28 August 2008. That was because he gave credit for 10 months imprisonment already served in relation to other matters which could not have been the subject of a declaration. In fact, tomorrow is the applicant's parole release date.
The applicant's complaint in the application form is that he was not given adequate credit for his pleas of guilty and cooperation with the police. The cases of Rhoden [2002] QCA 415 and Symes CA 46 of [1999] would support the three year term imposed here. Importantly, once one allows for the applicant's lengthy and highly relevant past criminal history, the sentencing Judge then effectively reduced the time actually to be served by one-third, which was appropriate.
The application has no merit and should be refused. When called upon to address the Court today, it emerged that the applicant really had not understood the sentence which had been imposed upon him.
When it was made clear to the applicant that tomorrow is his parole release date and that the 28th of August 2011 merely sets the end point for his term, subject to parole - continuing parole, he indicated that there was nothing in addition which he wished to ventilate in respect of the application.
WHITE AJA: I agree.
McMEEKIN J: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.