R v Curtis

[2001] QCA 44

[2001] QCA 44

COURT OF APPEAL

WILLIAMS JA
AMBROSE J

DOUGLAS J

CA No 271 of 2000

THE QUEEN

v.

MICHAEL GEORGE CURTIS	Applicant
BRISBANE ..DATE 19/02/2001
19022001 T3/JLP15 M/T COA34/2001

AMBROSE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentences imposed on 9 October 2000. The accused pleaded guilty to two charges of stealing goods in transit and to one charge of the supply of heroin essentially to an undercover police officer.

All offences were committed between 12 April and 24 April 1999.

With respect to the offences of stealing goods in transit, the applicant was sentenced to imprisonment of two and a half years. It was to be suspended after 12 months and an operational period of two and a half years was ordered. With respect to the supply of heroin, a sentence of one and a half years' imprisonment was imposed. It was to be suspended after one year and it had an operational period of one and a half years.

It is the case for the applicant that the sentences were
manifestly excessive and that the learned sentencing Judge did not
give sufficient consideration to making an order for the payment
of compensation and, at the same time, reducing the sentence to
one of perhaps two years' imprisonment with a suspension after
four months and an operational period of perhaps two years.

I would not give consideration to the sentence imposed with respect to the drug charge because, obviously, the head sentence of two and a half years with the suspension is the sentence which is significant on the evaluation of the criminality involved in both the stealing offences and the drug offence.

The applicant had a significant criminal history in his early
days. He commenced in 1974 in the Children's Court on a charge of

19022001 T3/JLP15 M/T COA34/2001

unlawful use of a motor vehicle but, more importantly, in 1975 he
was convicted on two offences, in 1974 of robbery being armed with
a dangerous weapon in company and personal violence. He was
granted parole on these offences with respect to the sentences

imposed but, in breach of parole, committed other offences.

There were a series of relatively minor offences then, 1985 to
1988. He was convicted of drug offences in 1992 and being in
possession of a restricted item which seemed to be handcuffs in

May 1999. He was fined and given time to pay.

The learned sentencing Judge canvassed these matters at some
length and she pointed out that of the goods stolen, firstly of
computer goods. They were stolen from a van or a carrying vehicle
driven by the applicant and also some electrical goods. Most of
the goods seem to have been recovered although about $3,800 worth

were not recovered.

And one of the matters raised by the applicant to support his case
is that it was mentioned in the course of submissions by counsel
for the applicant that, to use his words, "It is not a situation
where he couldn't pay compensation given the amounts that are
still outstanding." This observation was made in the context of
pointing out that the motivation for his committing these offences
was his financial problems that he was having and his inability to
earn enough money to pay rent and so on.

Well, it was my reading of the submissions that it could not be regarded as an offer made on behalf of the applicant to pay

19022001 T3/JLP15 M/T COA34/2001

compensation and had compensation been ordered, I find it
difficult to understand how he could have made that payment. The
learned sentencing Judge did not advert to that in the course of
imposing the sentences.

In my view, the offences of stealing goods in transit is a very serious offence, involved essentially a breach of trust, and the learned sentencing Judge commented to that effect in the sentencing remarks. I am unpersuaded that the sentence is manifestly excessive and I would reject the application for leave to appeal.

WILLIAMS JA: I agree.

DOUGLAS J: I agree.

WILLIAMS JA: The order of the Court is that the application for leave to appeal is refused.

-----