R v Dossi

[1995] QCA 204

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1995] QCA 204
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane	C.A. No. 95 of 1995
[R v. Dossi]

THE QUEEN

v.

STEVEN MALCOLM DOSSI

Applicant

Fitzgerald P.

McPherson J.A Shepherdson J.

Judgment delivered 02/06/1995

Judgment of the Court

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCES REFUSED.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - Pleas to 28 charges on two indictments - 45 other offences taken into account pursuant to S.189 Penalties and Sentences Act. Four years imprisonment with recommendation for parole after serving 15 months imprisonment. Some offences committed while on bail and on probation. Prior criminal history. Eighteen years old at sentencing.
Counsel:	Mr. P. Alcorn for the applicant Mr. P. Ridgway for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing date:	16 May 1995

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 02/06/95.

The applicant has applied for leave to appeal against sentences of four years' imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after serving fifteen months' imprisonment and also against a sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment for what he describes as "breach of probation".

All the sentences were imposed by a Judge of District Courts on 24 February 1995 after pleas of guilty on that day. The sentences of four years were imposed in respect of pleas of guilty to three offences of housebreaking and nine of entering a dwelling house with intent. On 24 February 1995 the applicant pleaded guilty to twenty-eight charges contained in two indictments then before the Court. These charges included housebreaking, entering a dwelling- house with intent, stealing, attempted stealing, receiving stolen property and obtaining goods by false pretences.

At the same time the applicant asked the Court (pursuant to s.189 of the Penalties and Sentences Act) that forty-five other offences be taken into account when sentences were imposed for the offences in the two indictments to which he had pleaded guilty. The Court acceded to this request.

The forty-five other offences included eleven of house-breaking and ten of entering a dwelling-house with intent.

The offences charged in the two indictments were committed between 28 September 1992 and 14 October 1994 - two of the offences were committed on or about 28 September 1992 and the rest on occasions between 29 January 1994 and 14 October 1994 (both dates inclusive).

In August and September 1993 the applicant had committed five offences to which he had pleaded guilty before another Judge of District Courts on 9 September 1994. These five offences included one of housebreaking and one of entering a dwelling-house with intent. On that day he was placed on probation for two years in respect of one of the five charges and for the remaining charges he was ordered to perform one hundred hours unpaid community service.

However, before appearing in court on 9 September 1994 the applicant had been arrested and been on bail in respect of the offences committed in August and September 1993 and while on such bail had committed further offences. On 29 July 1994 he was arrested again and released on bail. While on bail he committed further offences and, after being released on probation on 9 September 1994 he committed further similar offences.

After his arrest on 29 July 1994 the applicant was driven in a police-car on that day and again on 2 November 1994 on which two occasions he identified the sites of all the offences named in the two indictments to which he pleaded guilty on 24 February 1995 and also the forty- five further matters dealt with pursuant to s.189. On 2 November 1994 he told police that he wanted to clear up all outstanding matters.

The applicant was born on 12 October 1976.

Applicant's counsel, Mr Alcorn, argued that the four year sentences imposed for the

offences of housebreaking and entering a dwelling-house with intent together with the
recommendation of eligibility to parole after 15 months are manifestly excessive.

Mr Alcorn relied on a number of matters - the pleas of guilty indicated at a very early stage, the applicant's youth, the number of matters being dealt with under s.189, the high level of cooperation shown by the applicant and recognised by investigating police officers, the fact that the applicant had a drug problem and had made efforts at rehabilitation, the fact that the applicant was in employment and had started an apprenticeship, the fact that the offences were committed during times when the applicant was unemployed, and the fact that he had very good family support and was engaged to be married.

The value of the property involved in the offences of dishonesty disclosed in the two indictments and the s.189 schedule was in the order of some $20,000 and it appeared that at sentence the applicant had offered to pay $1000 cash and $100 a week.

When sentencing the applicant on 24 February 1995 the learned sentencing judge said

(inter alia):

"I take into account that you are 18 years of age and that many of these offences were committed whilst you were 17 years of age. However you have previous convictions for similar offences and, as I have said, you have been given adequate warning in the past."

Later, after announcing the sentences, he said:

"Having regard to your cooperation with the authorities, your pleas of guilty and your age, I recommend that you be considered for parole after serving 15 months."

The applicant has failed to show that the exercise of the sentencing discretion miscarried in any way and that the sentences of four years for the above offences with a recommendation of eligibility for parole after serving fifteen months were manifestly excessive.

As for the application for leave to appeal against the sentence of eighteen months' imprisonment in respect of breach of the probation order, this matter was not argued. For the record, that sentence was not technically a breach of probation. Instead, the learned District Court Judge, on 24 February 1995 set aside the probation order made on 9 September 1994 and resentenced the applicant for the 5 offences in the indictment then before the other learned District Court Judge. He sentenced the applicant to eighteen months' imprisonment in respect of each of those offences.

The application for leave to appeal against the sentences is refused.