R v Carrell

[1992] QCA 234

COURT OF APPEAL  [1992] QCA 234

MACROSSAN CJ
DAVIES JA
PINCUS JA

CA No 105 of 1992

THE QUEEN

v.

MARK STEPHEN CARRELL

(Appellant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 16/7/92

.. JUDGMENT

160792
JUDGMENT
THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The applicant pleaded guilty to a charge of unlawfully using a motor vehicle on 13 March 1992.  He was represented by a duty solicitor and was sentenced to 15 months custodial term.  It was ordered also that he be disqualified from driving a motor vehicle for 18 months.

The facts disclose that the car was taken from a carpark in Kedron.  The applicant and a companion were involved in the taking.  They had been drinking.  The car was discovered next morning at the address where the applicant was living.  He was aged 19 at the time and is now just turned 20.  The offence was committed while he was on bail for a similar offence, the material shows.

He had committed many similar offences in the past. Unfortunately, he has a very bad criminal history, although he is still a young man. The record shows that he first was convicted of unlawful use of a motor vehicle in April of 1989. He was sentenced then to six months imprisonment on that charge and some other charges in respect of which he was dealt with on that occasion. On a number of other occasions he was dealt with for unlawful use of a motor vehicle and there were many such examples of unlawful use. He has been sentenced to nine and ten month terms of imprisonment for the various offences which he has committed, which included breaking and entering. He has been dealt with for breach of the Bail Act and on one occasion for escaping from lawful custody. He has, unfortunately, shown himself to be a persistent offender who to date has not shown any tendency to mend his ways or be discouraged by the terms of imprisonment which have been imposed upon him. He is, so far, showing no respect for the law, and other people's property. The sentencing Magistrate would have been entitled to take all of these matters into account and would properly have done so.

The applicant complains that his co‑offender received only a nine months custodial term, but the co‑offender's record on examination was not as bad, and indeed, it could fairly be said not nearly as bad as the applicant's.  It cannot be said then that in all the circumstances there was a disparity between the sentences imposed.  They were, in fact, imposed by the same Magistrate.

In my opinion, there has been shown no ground for interference with the penalty and I would refuse the application.

PINCUS JA: I agree.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

_____