Vallis v Queensland Police Service
[2006] QDC 235
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
- Vallis v Queensland Police Service[2006] QDC 235
- Add to List
Vallis v Queensland Police Service[2006] QDC 235
Vallis v Queensland Police Service[2006] QDC 235
DISTRICT COURT |
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE BRITTON SC
JEREMY ROBERT VALLIS | Appellant |
and
QUEENSLAND POLICE SERVICE | Respondent |
ROCKHAMPTON
..DATE 12/06/2006
JUDGMENT
HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal against sentence by Jeremy Robert Vallis (the appellant) who was convicted and sentenced at the Magistrate's Court Rockhampton on the 3rd of February 2006 in respect of two offences of break, enter and steal. He had pleaded guilty to each of those charges.
The first, in time, of those offences was committed between the 7th of November 1998 and the 10th of November 1998. I will refer to this offence as the “Gympie offence.”
The second, in time, was committed between the 13th of January 2002 and the 19th of January 2002. I will refer to this offence as the “Chatsworth offence.”
At the time he was sentenced, the appellant was serving a number of sentences previously imposed. They were:
- (1)A sentence of four and a-half years imprisonment imposed at the District Court Gympie on the 14th of January 2003, in relation to which a declaration was made in respect of 319 days of presentence custody and a recommendation was made for post-prison community based release after serving 18 months; and
- (2)A sentence of one year imprisonment imposed at the Supreme Court Brisbane on the 2nd of November 2005 which was ordered to be served cumulatively upon the previous sentence. A recommendation was made for post-prison community based release, six months from the date of that sentence; and
- (3)A sentence of one months' imprisonment imposed at the Magistrate's Court Brisbane on the 24th of November 2005 which was ordered to be served cumulatively on the two previous sentences.
On the 3rd of February 2006, the learned Magistrate sentenced the appellant to six months' imprisonment for the Gympie offence and ordered that that sentence be served concurrently with the sentences he was then serving. He was also ordered to pay $5000 restitution and in default of payment he was ordered to be imprisoned for four months. He was allowed 18 months to pay the restitution.
In respect of the Chatsworth offence the appellant was sentenced to four months' imprisonment to be served cumulatively upon the sentences he was then serving and he was ordered to pay $1,500 restitution and allowed 18 months to pay, and in default, it was ordered that he be imprisoned for 30 days.
On the hearing of the appeal the appellant advanced argument in relation to three grounds of appeal. The first matter was that the appellant contends that the sentence for the Chatsworth offence should have been ordered to be served concurrently with all other sentences. The argument was simply that if the two charges, the subject of this appeal, had been dealt with by the District Court at Gympie on the 14th of June 2003 the sentences imposed would have been ordered to be served concurrently. The respondent argues that there is no basis for concluding that the sentences imposed by the Magistrate were manifestly excessive, either as to the length of them or by reason of the sentence for the Chatsworth offence being ordered to be served cumulatively on the other sentences he was then serving.
Before me, the appellant did not advance any argument on this ground other than that the sentence for the Chatsworth offence should have been ordered to be served concurrently. The respondent argued that the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the Magistrate's sentencing discretion had miscarried. It was argued that the effect of making the sentence for the Chatsworth offence cumulative was not to make the overall period of imprisonment a “crushing” one for the appellant, and that making the sentence cumulative was an appropriate exercise by the Magistrate of her sentencing discretion to reflect the criminality involved.
In that regard, when he committed the Chatsworth offence the appellant was 20 years of age and had convictions for a number of similar offences. In fact, between the commission of the Gympie offence in November 1998 and the commission of the Chatsworth offence, he had been convicted of one offence of entering premises and committing an indictable offence, 18 offences of break, enter and commit an indictable offence, and also two offences of wilful damage. The Chatsworth offence was committed during the operational period of two suspended sentences for like offences which had been imposed on the 12th of February 1999.
I accept the respondent's arguments on this ground of appeal. The appellant has failed to demonstrate that the Magistrate acted on a wrong principle or had regard to extraneous or irrelevant matters, mistook the facts, or failed to take into account any material consideration. I am not persuaded that the learned Magistrate erred in the exercise of her sentencing discretion in ordering that the sentence for the Chatsworth offence be served cumulatively.
The appellant's counsel argued that the main point of the appeal was that the Magistrate had failed to make a recommendation for post-prison community based release pursuant to section 157(3)(b) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. The respondent conceded this ground of appeal, but whereas the appellant argued that there should have been a recommendation for post-prison community based release after serving one month of the cumulative term imposed by the Magistrate, the respondent argued that it should have been a recommendation for post-prison community based release after serving two months. No argument was advanced on behalf of the appellant in support of his contention that the recommendation should have been for post-prison community based release after one month.
In my view, pursuant to section 157(3)(b) the learned Magistrate should have made a recommendation for post-prison community based release and it seems to me, having regard to all of the circumstances, including the appellant's criminal history, that a recommendation for release after two months of the cumulative sentence would have been appropriate.
The final point which was argued by the appellant was also conceded by the respondent. This was that in all of the circumstances, at the time of the sentence, it was very unlikely that the appellant would be able to pay the restitution which was ordered in respect of each of the offences and that, therefore, imprisonment in default of payment should not have been ordered.
It was agreed that in respect of each sentence the order for default imprisonment should be set aside and that there should be an order that, in default, the matter be referred to the SPER agency. In The Queen v Anderson (1995) 1 QdR 49, the Court of Appeal held that it was not a proper function, or purpose, of ordering restitution, where a cumulative term of imprisonment was imposed in default of payment, the offender was manifestly unable to make payment and the practical result was, therefore, to merely increase his effective sentence of imprisonment. The respondent conceded that there was no realistic possibility of the restitution being paid and that in this respect the Magistrate's sentencing discretion had miscarried. I accept that that is so.
The appeal will be allowed to the extent that I will make a recommendation for post-prison community based release as required by section 157 (3) (b) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 and that the imprisonment ordered in default of payment of restitution be set aside and an order made for referral to the SPER agency. The orders are:
- (1)That the appeal be allowed; and
- (2)That the orders for imprisonment, in default of payment of restitution, be set aside; and
- (3)That in default of payment of the restitution, the default be referred to the SPER agency; and
- (4)That in respect of the sentence of four months' imprisonment, I recommend a non-release period of two months from the commencement of that sentence.
-----