R v Campbell

[2009] QCA 203

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
MUIR JA
CHESTERMAN JA

CA No 116 of 2009

THE QUEEN

GLENN CAMPBELL Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 17/07/2009

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: On the 2nd of April 2009 the applicant was sentenced in the District Court to four years' imprisonment suspended after 18 month for an operational period of four years. He had pleaded guilty to six counts of fraud and attempted fraud committed over a period of 18 months.

The fraud counts involved his dishonestly obtaining a total of $124,000 and the attempted fraud related to a sum of $140,000. The instances of fraud have had a very serious impact on the victims. No restitution could be made.

The applicant pleaded to two other counts of fraud in relation to a $5,000 car repair bill involving his having passed dishonoured cheques. At the time of the offending, the applicant was in his mid-40s and no prior criminal history.

He filed an application for extension of time on the 20th of May 2009. He was therefore about three weeks out of time. His explanation is: "I had been working on my appeal at Brisbane Correctional Centre and was moved to Numinbah Correctional Centre and had lost my papers concerning the appeal application. I have finished the application, that leaves me two weeks over the required time. Also, we have had many public holidays between this time as well."

The applicant relies on his absence of any prior criminal history, his pleas of guilty, extensive cooperation with the police and remorse for a contention that the overall sentence imposed upon him was manifestly excessive. From previous cases, the learned sentencing Judge drew a range of five to six years for protracted dishonesty involving comparable sums, but where the prisoner bore a lengthy prior history of dishonesty.

Allowing for the applicant's not having such prior history, the Judge adopted a head sentence of four years, then additionally suspending that term after a little more than one-third in order to reflect the mitigating factors.

Allowing for the amounts in issue, the persistent nature of the offending and the severe consequences for the victims, an effective sentence of that order was unexceptionable after allowing for mitigating circumstances.

In the circumstances, the application for an extension of time within which to apply for leave to appeal should be refused.

MUIR JA: I agree.

CHESTERMAN JA: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Campbell was heard by the Court of Appeal in Queensland. The applicant, Glenn Campbell, sought an extension of time to appeal against his sentence. Campbell had been sentenced in the District Court to a four-year imprisonment term, suspended after 18 months for an operational period of four years. He had pleaded guilty to six counts of fraud and attempted fraud over an 18-month period, involving a total of $124,000 and $140,000 respectively. The applicants’ offences had a significant impact on the victims, with no possibility of restitution.

The Court was required to determine whether the applicant's application for an extension of time should be granted. The applicant argued that his sentence was manifestly excessive, and the appeal was late due to his transfer between correctional centres, resulting in lost paperwork. The Court considered the applicant's lack of prior criminal history, his guilty pleas, cooperation with the police, and remorse as mitigating factors. The sentencing judge had previously drawn a range of five to six years for similar offences but noted that the applicant's lack of a lengthy prior history of dishonesty should be taken into account. The Court had to decide if the sentence was excessive, considering the amount involved, the persistent nature of the offending, and the severe consequences for the victims.

The Court found that the applicant's lack of prior criminal history and other mitigating factors were adequately considered by the sentencing judge. The Court also considered the severe impact of the offences on the victims and the amounts involved. The Court was of the view that the effective sentence of four years, suspended after 18 months, was unexceptionable. Therefore, the application for an extension of time to appeal the sentence was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established