Attorney-General (Qld) v Larsen

[1992] QCA 71

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 071

MACROSSAN CJ McPHERSON JA WILLIAMS J

Appeal No 345 OF 1991

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND	Appellant
and
TERRY DOUGLAS LARSEN	Respondent
BRISBANE
... DATE 2/4/92
JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The Attorney-General appeals against sentences imposed on the respondent on 22 November 1991. The respondent pleaded guilty to two charges of unlawful possession of a motor vehicle, with as well in each case a circumstance of aggravation stated to be interfering with the parts of the motor vehicles. That interference involved extensive work altering the vehicle to enable them to be disguised for re-sale or use.

The offences occurred over a period which was specified for the first charge as being between August 1990 and June 1991, and in the second charge, between January 1991 and June 1991.

In each case the respondent was ordered to serve three years probation and to perform 120 hours of community service; that is, 120 hours on each charge, making a total of 240 hours. We were informed that the community service ordered to be performed has now been completed.

The serious aspect of the case is, of course, that the respondent acquired the two vehicles knowing them to have been stolen. It was accordingly then a commercial enterprise of a sort which he embarked upon, and the learned sentencing Judge referred to the professional aspects involved in the matter.

The sentencing Judge recognised that a prison term would be usual for this type of offence - two to three years, he thought. I refer to this matter to emphasise that he did not overlook the usual way in which offences of this kind can be dealt with. However, he thought there were factors which called for a rather different approach to be taken in the case before him.

The respondent was a man, thirty years of age. He had no previous convictions at all, and he entered an early plea.

He has suffered other loss as a result of his wrongdoing which would inflict a penalty of a personal kind upon him arising out of the events. He resigned his employment as a result and, although there was no charity in the expenditure, and he was going to this trouble for the benefit that he hoped to get for himself, he suffered a financial loss of some $14,000 as a result of the work which he was performing on the cars, and he got no benefit from that expenditure. So he was left with that loss.

One accepts that in a case with a commercial motive of the present kind, custodial terms would be the order of the day in the usual case. However, the Judge cannot be said to be wrong in identifying the particular features of the case, and in my opinion he was justified in approaching the matter as he did, and I would not be persuaded that we should interfere and I would for myself dismiss the appeal.

McPHERSON JA: I agree.
WILLIAMS J: I agree.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The appeal is dismissed.