R v Davies

[1995] QCA 634

[1995] QCA 634

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA DOWSETT J LEE J

CA No 330 of 1995
THE QUEEN
v.

TROY ADAM DAVIES

BRISBANE
..DATE 24/10/95
DAVIES JA: I will ask Mr Justice Dowsett to deliver his reasons
first.

DOWSETT J: The applicant was born on 23 June 1970 and was convicted on 27 July this year of six counts of unlawful possession of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation and four of false pretences.

These offences arose out of a course of conduct undertaken by the applicant between September 1991 and January of 1995 pursuant to which he would arrange for other people to steal motor cars and then change their identities by doing work on them and using parts and compliance plates derived from other vehicles which had been wrecked. He would resell the product.

The prosecution alleged that the total sum of money involved as money paid by innocent purchasers was approximately $108,000, but the actual loss was probably substantially less than this. The defence alleges that a figure in the vicinity of $30,000 is more likely.

He was detected in his dishonesty in respect of one offence and subsequently made full admissions in respect of the others. Nonetheless, the fact of the matter is that he continued in what was apparently a quite lucrative business, from his point of view, for something in excess of three years and no doubt caused substantial loss to others as a result thereof.

He was in employment at the time and in a long-standing relationship. He had two previous convictions, one for

2

241095 T14/MS M/T COA 95/328
possession of a set of handcuffs in 1987, and for unlawful use
of a motor vehicle in 1989. Given that there is an element of
dishonesty associated with the latter offence, it would
therefore not be entirely appropriate to treat him as being
without previous convictions, but it is fair to say, I think,
that for present purposes his record is of little relevance.

It is conceded by the applicant that the recent decision of this Court in The Queen against Proctor and Miles CA 371 and 372 of 1993 offers some guidance and, to some extent, is inconsistent with the present application. The applicant, Miles, pleaded guilty to 13 counts of unlawful possession of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation and received a sentence of four years imprisonment on each count, and on eight counts of false pretences he received a sentence of imprisonment of two years, all sentences to be concurrent.

The present application was sentenced to three years imprisonment in respect of each of the unlawful possession counts and 18 months in respect of the false pretences counts. It could therefore be said that given the respective volumes of the offences of dishonesty committed by Miles and by the present applicant, a reasonable degree of comparability has been maintained.

However, the applicant submits that the learned sentencing Judge failed to give appropriate weight to the youth of the applicant, his employment record, his offer of restitution and his remorse.

I am simply unable to find that to be so in this case. Where a

241095 T14/MS M/T COA 95/328
person has conducted himself in this way over an extended period
of time until not long before his misconduct was discovered, it
is artificial, in my view, to speak of remorse. He had plenty
of time for remorse during the time that the offences were being
committed. It cannot be coincidental that his remorse, such as
it is, coincides with his detection.

In the circumstances, I can see no basis upon which interference could be justified in this case. I would refuse the application.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

LEE J: I agree.

DAVIES JA: The application is refused.

-----