Bindon v Meyer

[1995] QCA 540

COURT OF APPEAL

[1995] QCA 540

PINCUS JA
LEE J

MACKENZIE J

CA No 288 of 1995
M T BINDON
v.

STEVEN CLIVE MEYERApplicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 05/10/95
051095 D.1 T17/DL M/T COA95/295
PINCUS JA: The applicant, Steven Clive Meyer, has applied for
leave to appeal against sentence. He was sentenced in the
Magistrates Court at Holland Park in last June on charges of
numerous offences which I will mention. The term imposed was 12
months to be suspended for a period of two years after three
months and restitution was ordered.

The applicant Mr Meyer has not appeared today. His name has been called outside the Court and there has been no response to that. We have had the advantage of some assistance from Mrs Clare for the respondent.

The offences in question were committed in 1986 and they were 41 offences of false pretences and one of receiving. What happened was that in 1986 a Mastercard was stolen from a person's home. The applicant got hold of the card knowing it had been stolen and he used it to obtain various sorts of goods. He gained from it a sum of about $1,600, making 41 purchases; hence there were the 41 charges of false pretences. In 1995 he was in contact with the police and when they realised who he was they charged him with these old offences.

The applicant's criminal record is not unimpressive. He has convictions which are fairly numerous both before and after those with which we are presently concerned. Terms of imprisonment have been imposed on five separate occasions for periods up to 16 months. There is a considerable number of offences of dishonesty, drug offences and driving offences.

051095 D.1 T17/DL M/T COA95/295
What the Magistrate did was to impose, as I mentioned, 12 months
imprisonment, suspended after three months in respect of the
receiving charge and three months imprisonment concurrent on the
other charges together with an order for restitution. Mrs Clare
has helpfully drawn our attention to the problem whether or not
the applicant was too harshly treated because there was a
combination of both restitution and imprisonment. The material
does not seem to me to support that suggestion. The penalty
imposed was not very heavy. It was no doubt substantial in the
sense that it involved a gaol term, but the applicant had such a
bad record that a gaol term was almost inevitable.

Mrs Clare has also drawn our attention to the fact that in the past the applicant has had difficulties with alcohol and drugs; he was at one stage a heroin addict. These matters were no doubt taken into account by the Magistrate. The view which I take is that the Magistrate has imposed a penalty which is within the range of a proper exercise of discretion and I would be inclined to refuse the application.

LEE J: I agree.

MACKENZIE J: I agree.

PINCUS JA: This application is refused.

-----