Denny v the Queen
[1988] TASSC 47
•7 September 1988
Serial No 39/1988
List “A”
COURT: SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA (COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL)
CITATION: Denny v The Queen [1988] TASSC 47; A39/1988
PARTIES: DENNY, Peter Terrance
v
THE QUEEN
FILE NO/S: CCA 37/1988
DELIVERED ON: 7 September 1988
DELIVERED AT: Hobart
JUDGMENT OF: Neasey, Nettlefold and Cox JJ
Judgment Number: A39/1988
Number of paragraphs: 8
Serial No 39/1988
List "A"
File No CCA 37/1988
PETER TERRANCE DENNY v THE QUEEN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL:
NEASEY J
NETTLEFOLD J
COX J
7 September 1988
ORDER OF THE COURT:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed
Serial No 39/1988
List "A"
File No CCA 37/1988
PETER TERRANCE DENNY v THE QUEEN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL:
NEASEY J
NETTLEFOLD J
COX J
7 September 1988
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of three years‘ imprisonment imposed upon him in respect of an indictment containing 16 counts of burglary and 17 counts of stealing to which he pleaded guilty.
The crimes involve the unlawful entry of some 16 private dwelling houses and the theft therefrom of valuables, including television sets, video cassette recorders, photographic equipment, microwave ovens, jewellery, bottles of alcohol, cutlery, foodstuffs and bric–a–brac. The additional count of stealing involved the theft of a boat and trailer, outboard motor and sundry boating and fishing accessories, the enterprise involving the removal of the trailer, boat and contents from the owner's driveway. The total value of the property, the learned trial judge was told by the prosecutor, amounted to approximately $45,000 and goods to the value of less than $20,000 had been recovered. It was put to the learned trial judge that the applicant had come under the influence of persons of bad character with previous convictions and had carried out the crimes in their company. He admitted to having sold many of the goods to unidentified persons in hotels and to having received about $5,500 as his share.
The first criminal episode was committed in late January 1987, the second a month later, the next three in March 1987, five more in April, four in June and three in July 1987. Thus the conduct was regularly sustained over a period of some six months. It was no sudden fall from grace or frenetic spree of short duration to which the applicant put a voluntary stop. It terminated because police placed him and his associates under surveillance and intercepted them handling property stolen from their last burglary.
The applicant is 29 years of age, separated from his wife and two young children. Prior to November 1986 when the separation occurred he had a commendable work record and he has no previous relevant convictions. After his apprehension he co–operated with the police in confessing his involvement and helping them to recover some of the stolen property. In fact he admitted to some offences which were not even put to him by the police. His co–operation did not extend to identifying all his associates, and he at first claimed to have committed most of the crimes on his own for fear of repercussions. At the time of sentence his Honour was told the applicant had good prospects of a sawmilling partnership with his father and that he had stopped drinking alcohol for over three months.
By way of explanation it was submitted that the domestic problems encountered by the applicant and culminating in the separation of November 1986 had led to his consuming alcohol to excess and to his associating with undesirable persons who had encouraged him to participate in the offences.
On the hearing of the application it was submitted that a sentence of three years‘ imprisonment on such an offender was more than enough to satisfy any requirement for general and individual deterrence and that the reformatory aspects of punishment required the imposition of a lesser penalty. It was conceded that some term of imprisonment was appropriate, but it was urged upon us that at least a portion of such term should have been suspended. In the light of s386(1)(d) of the Criminal Code, as it now stands, no suspension of any part of a sentence in excess of 12 months would have been open to the learned trial judge sentencing globally. We think it unarguable that a sentence well in excess of 12 months actual imprisonment was required.
The applicant engaged knowingly and repeatedly in an enterprise involving the entry of private dwelling houses and the removal therefrom of valuables for which there was a ready market. He did it, according to his record of interview, because of "the lure of easy money". He is not a youthful offender, but a man of mature years who must have fully realised the dimensions of the unlawful activities he chose to engage in. He committed numerous crimes over a lengthy period of time and he stole goods of very substantial value. In our view a sentence of three years' imprisonment was within a sound exercise of the learned trial judge‘s sentencing discretion, notwithstanding the absence of previous convictions and notwithstanding the other matters put in mitigation.
We refuse the application.
0
0
0