R v Bryzak

[1996] QCA 385

[1996] QCA 385

COURT OF APPEAL
MOYNIHAN J
MACKENZIE J

CULLINANE J

CA No 321 of 1996
THE QUEEN
v.

DARREN GLEN BRYZAKApplicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 02/10/96
021096 T7/RB M/T COA240/96
CULLINANE J: The applicant pleaded guilty to two offences of
housebreaking, two of stealing, five of false pretences and one
of unlawful using a motor vehicle. He was sentenced to three
and a half years imprisonment in respect to the two
housebreaking offences, 18 months in respect of the stealing
offences, six months imprisonment in respect of the false
pretences and unlawful using offences, all of which were to be
served concurrently.

The false pretences offences involved the pawning of various items of property, in most instances property obtained in the course of the housebreaking and stealing offences that he pleaded guilty to and the unlawful using a motor vehicle offence arose out of one of the false pretences offences when the registration number and car description was obtained and the vehicle was subsequently found to have been stolen.

The primary complaint is that the sentencing Judge, when making a recommendation as to the applicant's eligibility for parole failed to sufficiently allow for certain factors to be taken into account on his behalf. The first of these, of course, were his pleas of guilty and also certain assistance that he provided to the police and which is dealt with in Exhibit 4, the contents of which have been read by the Court. As well some assistance was provided in relation to co-offenders involved in the commission of some of the offences which are the subject of this appeal.

The applicant has a prodigious criminal history commencing from when he was a child. He has many convictions for offences of 021096 T7/RB M/T COA240/96

the kind that he was sentenced in respect of and in respect of which he has appealed. He was on probation at the time all of these offences were committed. As I have said there is no substantial dispute as to the head sentences imposed.

The recommendation which the sentencing Judge made was that the applicant be eligible to be released after serving a period of 18 months. He would, in the ordinary course of events, have been eligible for release after a period of 21 months.

Whilst it is the case that any variation of the sentence imposed in this regard would involve relatively little alteration in the sentence imposed, in my view I think it is correct to conclude in the particular circumstances of this case that not sufficient weight has been given to the factors that I have referred to.

I would grant the application, allow the appeal and vary the recommendation so that the applicant would be eligible to be released after serving a period of 12 months.

MOYNIHAN J: I agree that this is a sufficiently exceptional case to justify what might otherwise seem to be a fairly minor intervention. I agree with the order proposed.

MACKENZIE J: I agree with the remarks of both of my brothers.

MOYNIHAN J: The order will be as Justice Cullinane has indicated.

-----