R v Coster - [2000] QCA 128

[2000] QCA 128

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
DAVIES JA
HELMAN J

[R v Coster]

CA No 432 of 1999

THE QUEEN

BRYCE STEPHEN COSTER Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 11/04/2000

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty on 3 December 1999 in the District Court at Southport to two counts of break, enter and steal, one count of housebreaking and one count of stealing. The offences occurred between 17 June 1998 and 8 February 1999.

He was sentenced to four years imprisonment in respect of the offence of housebreaking and to three years imprisonment in respect of the remaining offences. The applicant had a limited but significant prior criminal history. He had a minor street offence in 1997. In 1998, he was dealt with for offences of assault occasioning bodily harm. More significantly, on 6 January 1999, he was sentenced on 38 fraud offences, committed between 17 July 1997 and
14 October 1997, to two years' imprisonment, wholly suspended for an operational period of three years.

The last two offences occurred just one month after the imposition of that suspended sentence and constituted a breach of it. The terms of imprisonment to which the applicant was sentenced were to be served concurrently with the two years suspended sentence, which was activated.

The facts of the offences are as follows. On 17 June 1998, the applicant forced open a sliding glass door of an unoccupied display home owned by a charity and removed a washing machine which he planned to collect later. He was identified by neighbours, the washing machine was not removed from outside the premises and was recovered (Count 1).

On 31 December 1998, he disconnected the power and forced the front glass door of a business at Labrador, stealing a jet ski and trailer, cash register and $1,000 cash and irrigation equipment. The total value of the property stolen in respect of this offence was $9,100 and the value of the unrecovered property was $4,000. This offence was committed whilst the applicant was on bail for the previous offence (Count 2).

Finally, on 8 February 1999, the applicant forced the laundry window of a Boystown prize home and again stole a washing machine and, on this occasion, additionally, a clothes drier, sewing machine, other items of laundry equipment and outdoor furniture. The value of the unrecovered property was $3,942 (Counts 3 and 4). These offences were committed whilst on bail for counts 1 and 2 and, as has been noted, breached the operational period of the suspended sentence.

The offences the subject of the suspended sentence involved the writing of cheques in the course of the applicant's business. The cheques were subsequently dishonoured and involved a total of $19,203.89, $12,000 of which remains outstanding. These fraud offences were committed in an attempt to keep the applicant's business afloat.

The applicant also claimed that Counts 3 and 4 were committed to obtain funds to make compensation in respect of the fraud charges and also to maintain a lifestyle which…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading R v Coster

Details

AGLC: R v Coster [2000] QCA 128
Case: [2000] QCA 128
Decision Date: 11/04/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Coster, the applicant, Bryce Stephen Coster, appealed against his sentence imposed by the District Court at Southport on 3 December 1999. Coster had pleaded guilty to two counts of break, enter, and steal, one count of housebreaking, and one count of stealing. The offences occurred between 17 June 1998 and 8 February 1999. Coster was sentenced to four years imprisonment for the offence of housebreaking and three years imprisonment for the remaining offences, to be served concurrently. The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The Court also considered mitigating factors, including Coster's plea of guilty, his remorse, his limited criminal history, and his family circumstances.

The Court of Appeal considered the applicant's arguments that the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances and did not sufficiently reflect the mitigating factors. The Court noted that Coster had a limited but significant prior criminal history, including a suspended sentence for fraud offences. The Court acknowledged that the offences in question occurred during a period of financial difficulty for Coster, but they were committed at a different time-frame and were of a different kind compared to the earlier offences. The Court found that the sentence, although high, was not manifestly excessive, taking into account Coster's previous criminal history and the number and seriousness of the offences committed.

The Court of Appeal ultimately refused the application for leave to appeal against sentence and dismissed the appeal. The Court confirmed the sentence imposed in the District Court at Southport on 3 December 1999, which was four years imprisonment for the offence of housebreaking and three years imprisonment for the remaining offences, to be served concurrently.

Orders