R v Dean

[1999] QCA 387

99.387

COURT OF APPEAL
PINCUS JA
McPHERSON JA

AMBROSE J

CA No 245 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.

JEFFREY DAVID DEAN Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 13/09/99
130999 T13/SJ3 M/T COA225/99
PINCUS JA: This is an application by Jeffrey David Dean who
appears for himself today and has addressed us in a useful
fashion. The applicant is aged 26 and he was sentenced on
pleas of guilty in the District Court in respect of 15
offences. They fell into two groups: there were six
committed initially and subsequently nine. A difference
between the two groups is that the second nine were
committed while the applicant was on bail in respect of the
first six. In total there were eight offences of entering a
dwelling and committing an indictable offence, three of
receiving, two of fraud and two of unlawful use of a motor
vehicle.

The applicant at the time when he committed these offences had previous convictions in his record. He had been before the Court on a number of occasions and I will not mention all of them. Those which are significant for present purposes are offences committed in 1990 and 1991 in respect of stealing and attempted stealing. None of these, however, as Mr Dean points out, produced a prison sentence. In relation to the stealing charges in 1991, he was sentenced on one occasion to probation and on other occasions he was fined.

The present group of offences appear to me to be reasonably serious and this is a proposition which the applicant does not dispute. It is unnecessary to give complete details and sufficient to mention examples.

130999 T13/SJ3 M/T COA225/99
On 18 August last year a complainant left her house locked
and secured during the day, she came home in the evening to
discover that property had been stolen including electronic
equipment, compact discs and the like and that entry had
been gained by smashing a glass door. The property involved
was $2,919 and it was not recovered. Then, the following
day, there was a similar offence, $1,399 worth of property
and nothing recovered.

To illustrate the receiving charges, of which there were three, I mention that on 16 August 1998 a dwelling was broken into during the day by jemmying open the front window. Property was taken and on the same day the applicant pawned a mountain bike which had been stolen from the dwelling. Then that produced two charges; one was receiving and one was fraud. And there was a similar sequence of events in respect of an offence on 2 November 1998, a dwelling was broken into, entry was gained by use of a jemmy, there was over $6,000 worth of property taken and on the same day the applicant pawned a Sharp video recorder, a television set and a camera and that also produced an offence of fraud. I mentioned that there were two offences of unlawful use of a motor vehicle. It does not seem necessary to give any details of those.

The total amount of money involved was rather substantial, in the vicinity of $40,000, and the District Court Judge imposed a sentence of three years with a recommendation for consideration for parole after 12 months.

130999 T13/SJ3 M/T COA225/99
Now, the applicant does not deny the seriousness of the
offences nor does he dispute the primary Judge's view that
it was a case where deterrence was necessary. As the Judge
said, people are "fed up to the back teeth" with this sort
of thing and they expect those who commit the offences to be
deterred.

The applicant does not dispute any of this but he simply says that since he has been in gaol, and that has been since February, he has had a chance to think about things. He says that his offences were drug related. He has been off drugs. He can see a plan for the rest of his life and he can see the prospect of his becoming a useful citizen.

I must say that I was impressed with the applicant's determination. He seems to me to have a sincere desire to behave himself in future and I hope that this works out for him. On the other hand, our function is to determine whether or not the primary Judge went beyond the scope of a proper exercise of discretion. The sentence was three years with a recommendation for parole after 12 months and we do not have any right to intervene unless we are of the opinion that what the Judge did was manifestly excessive.

While, as I say, I am impressed with the applicant's address to us today - he is obviously an intelligent person and determined to do well in the future - the circumstances are such that it is impossible to say that what the Judge did 130999 T13/SJ3 M/T COA225/99

was too harsh. I would therefore dismiss the application

for leave to appeal.

McPHERSON JA: I agree.

AMBROSE J: I agree.

PINCUS JA: The application is dismissed.

-----