Adams v Hebblethwaite

[2010] QDC 183

[2010] QDC 183

DISTRICT COURT
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
JUDGE KOPPENOL
Appeal No 3284 of 2009

MARK WAYNE ADAMS	Appellant
and
CHRISTOPHER HEBBLETHWAITE	Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 19/04/2010 ORDER

1-1
HIS HONOUR: This is an appeal from the decision of a learned

1

Magistrate in Brisbane. On the 6th of November 2009 the applicant pleaded guilty to one count of fraud.

The background was that in July 2009 the applicant attended at

a pawn broker's premises with a stereo before which a long-	10
standing friend of his had asked him to take her to the pawn
brokers so that she could pawn it. In the circumstances which
occurred, the applicant was the person who entered the pawn
broker's store and signed a docket there that the stereo was
his property. He received the money for the stereo and passed	20
it on to his friend.
He was subsequently charged with fraud and pleaded guilty. He
was sentenced to two months' imprisonment which was suspended
after 12 months. He was also ordered to pay restitution of	30
$150.
Ms Schilton for the applicant submits that the sentence was
manifestly excessive. She relies particularly upon the fact
that the applicant, whose criminal history sheet consists of	40
three pages, did not commit any further offences between 2004
and 2009. An analysis of the criminal history reveals that in
2003 the applicant was dealt with in the District Court for a
number of offences which were committed between 1999 and 2002.
He was ordered to be imprisoned for 12 months to be served by	50

way of an intensive correction order. In 2005 he appeared in the Magistrates Court charged with unauthorised stealing with shop goods in December 2004. The applicant's criminal history includes a number of dishonesty offences, although they are, 1-2 ORDER 60

1

as it were, somewhat dated.

The learned Magistrate was concerned to ensure that there
would be no repetition of the applicant's criminal behaviour.

It was for that reason that his Honour imposed the sentence	10
which is the subject of the appeal today.
Ms Schilton submitted that the sentence was manifestly
excessive, having regard to the passage of time since the
dates of the offences which were the subject of various	20
convictions in the District Court and the Magistrates Court and submitted that her client should have received a fine.
Whilst it is undoubtedly the case that the applicant could
have received a fine in the circumstances, I am not satisfied	30
that the sentence which was imposed by the learned Magistrate was manifestly excessive. It seems to me that it was well within the range of sentences which could have been imposed in the circumstances.
40
Ms Logan for the Queensland Police Service drew my attention
to the Court of Appeal's decision in R v Moore [2005] QCA 400
where an intensive correction order was imposed where a person
pleaded guilty to one count of receiving and one count of
fraud. That person had a lengthy criminal history and the	50

fraud offence was committed whilst that person was on bail for like offences. The imposition there of an intensive correction order, which was not interfered with by the Court of Appeal, illustrates that in the circumstances of this case 1-3 ORDER 60

1

it could well have been the case that an intensive correction
order could have been imposed. That, of course, would be much
more demanding upon the applicant, much more so than an order
for a suspended sentence of imprisonment in circumstances

where this applicant had previously received penalties by way	10
of imprisonment to be served by an intensive correction order.
In the circumstances, as I've said, I'm not satisfied that the learned Magistrate's sentence was manifestly excessive. The appeal will therefore be dismissed.	20

-----

30

40

50

1-4 ORDER 60