R v Campbell
[2009] QCA 203
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 Campbell[2009] QCA 203
- Add to List
R v Campbell[2009] QCA 203
R v Campbell[2009] QCA 203
COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
MUIR JA
CHESTERMAN JA
CA No 116 of 2009
THE QUEEN
v
GLENN CAMPBELLApplicant
BRISBANE
DATE 17/07/2009
JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: On the 2nd of April 2009 the applicant was sentenced in the District Court to four years' imprisonment suspended after 18 month for an operational period of four years. He had pleaded guilty to six counts of fraud and attempted fraud committed over a period of 18 months.
The fraud counts involved his dishonestly obtaining a total of $124,000 and the attempted fraud related to a sum of $140,000. The instances of fraud have had a very serious impact on the victims. No restitution could be made.
The applicant pleaded to two other counts of fraud in relation to a $5,000 car repair bill involving his having passed dishonoured cheques. At the time of the offending, the applicant was in his mid-40s and no prior criminal history.
He filed an application for extension of time on the 20th of May 2009. He was therefore about three weeks out of time. His explanation is: "I had been working on my appeal at Brisbane Correctional Centre and was moved to Numinbah Correctional Centre and had lost my papers concerning the appeal application. I have finished the application, that leaves me two weeks over the required time. Also, we have had many public holidays between this time as well."
The applicant relies on his absence of any prior criminal history, his pleas of guilty, extensive cooperation with the police and remorse for a contention that the overall sentence imposed upon him was manifestly excessive. From previous cases, the learned sentencing Judge drew a range of five to six years for protracted dishonesty involving comparable sums, but where the prisoner bore a lengthy prior history of dishonesty.
Allowing for the applicant's not having such prior history, the Judge adopted a head sentence of four years, then additionally suspending that term after a little more than one-third in order to reflect the mitigating factors.
Allowing for the amounts in issue, the persistent nature of the offending and the severe consequences for the victims, an effective sentence of that order was unexceptionable after allowing for mitigating circumstances.
In the circumstances, the application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal should be refused.
MUIR JA: I agree.
CHESTERMAN JA: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.