R v Bishop

[1993] QCA 29

[1993] QCA 029

COURT OF APPEAL

FITZGERALD P
DAVIES JA

McPHERSON JA

CA No 324 of 1992

THE QUEEN
v.

LAWRENCE MARTIN BISHOP

BRISBANE
..DATE 04/02/93

THE PRESIDENT: Lawrence Martin Bishop has applied for leave to appeal against a sentence of imprisonment for three years imposed in the District Court at Ipswich on 6 November 1992 for the offence of misappropriation of property with the circumstance of aggravation.

The complainant Mr Cummings is a registered motor dealer with premises at Ipswich. In March 1992 he entered a commercial venture with Bishop, whereby Bishop would buy and on sell vehicles for Cummings and they would share the profits equally. Cummings issued blank cheques to Bishop to purchase vehicles. Between 12 March and 29 April 1992, in eight cases of on selling vehicles, Bishop received cheques from purchasers payable to cash in the sum of $3,500, cashed it , and used the proceeds for himself. In total, Bishop misappropriated in excess of $59,000.

Although there was an offer of the sum of $100 per week by way of restitution, the Judge formed the view that there was no real possibility of the restitution, and that conclusion has not been challenged. Bishop was 39 years of age when he committed the offence and has no prior criminal history. He pleaded guilty at the first available opportunity. He has joined Gamblers Anonymous and sought psychiatric help in an attempt to cope with

his gambling problem.

Counsel for Bishop conceded that a custodial sentence was warranted in this case. A large amount of money was stolen in a series of transactions involving a breach of trust in a business relationship. However, it was submitted for Bishop that a non- parole period of less than half the head sentence should have been given. In essence, it was contended that, as against the need to provide a deterrence for such offences which are both serious and prevalent, weight needed to be given to considerations personal to the applicant and in particular his age, his total lack of previous convictions, his good background and upbringing, and his attempts at rehabilitation.

All such matters are of significance and are entitled to weight.
However, in my opinion there is no indication that they were not
properly taken into account by the learned sentencing Judge, who
fixed a sentence at the lower end of the range, according to the

prior decisions in the Court of Criminal Appeal. Accordingly, I

have refused leave to appeal.

McPHERSON JA: I agree.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: The order of the Court is that his application for leave to appeal is refused.