R v Faramus - [1999] QCA 167

99.167

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
DERRINGTON J
CHESTERMAN J

CA No 30 of 1999

THE QUEEN

WAYNE PETER FARAMUS Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 11/05/99

JUDGMENT

PINCUS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. Mr Faramus, the applicant, has represented himself today and has also assisted the Court with some written material which has been presented.

The initiating document was drawn so as to constitute an appeal against conviction as well as an application for leave to appeal against sentence. But the grounds stated in the arguments advanced make it clear that it is only the sentences imposed which are attacked.

The applicant was sentenced on pleas of guilty to imprisonment for housebreaking and stealing and other offences. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment for the housebreaking and stealing and to lesser terms of imprisonment for the other offences. There was no recommendation for early parole and that is a point of which Mr Faramus makes particular complaint.

The written argument raises a number of matters but principally says that the applicant has turned over a new leaf and that he has children to care for. The applicant has told us that he was formerly an addict, being addicted to heroin, and his written argument says that he was led by his addiction to commit offences and that he has beaten his addiction. In oral argument he has emphasised his desire to be engaged in some rehabilitative activity which is not available, or not satisfactory, in prison.

A complaint to police and subsequent investigations caused them to search the applicant's home. Property was identified there which had been obtained in three offences of breaking and entering at the Gold Coast. The applicant, when interviewed, admitted those offences being three of those charges and he also told the police about other offences he had committed. Up to that point the applicant had admitted having committed 13 offences, being seven breaking and entering, four receiving and two of other kinds of dishonesty.
The police found a sedan at the applicant's address which had been stolen from Victoria about a fortnight earlier. The applicant told police he was keeping the vehicle for another person and that he had used it as transport to commit his offences. He was charged with receiving the vehicle.

He was then bailed and he used this freedom, the freedom accorded to him, to commit a further breaking and entering offence. He was again arrested and bailed and while on bail committed a further receiving offence. The value of the unrecovered stolen property and damaged property was about $24,000. I cannot find in the record a statement of the total value of the property stolen.

The applicant was born on 3 February 1961 and his criminal career began when he was 16. He was convicted in 1977 of a number of offences of breaking, entering and stealing. Since 1977, in 11 subsequent years, he has appeared in Court in relation to offences of varying…

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 Faramus

Details

AGLC: R v Faramus [1999] QCA 167
Case: [1999] QCA 167
Decision Date: 11 May 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Faramus involves the applicant, Wayne Peter Faramus, who applied for leave to appeal against his sentence. The applicant was represented by himself and presented some written material to assist the court. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment for housebreaking and stealing and to lesser terms for other offences. The applicant argued that the sentence was too harsh, particularly as there was no recommendation for early parole, and that he had turned over a new leaf and had children to care for.

The legal issues the court had to decide were whether the sentence imposed was too harsh and if the applicant was entitled to leave to appeal against his sentence. The applicant argued that he had overcome his addiction to heroin and that he had beaten his addiction. He also emphasised his desire to engage in some rehabilitative activity, which he claimed was not available or satisfactory in prison. However, the court noted that the applicant had a long history of criminal activity, beginning when he was 16 years old, and that he had caused considerable anguish and hardship to his victims.

The court's reasoning was that imprisonment has purposes other than benefiting the offender, one of which is to punish offenders and to discourage them and others from committing similar offences. The court also noted that the applicant would, at best, be released after having served three years, and that the chance of his being released may increase if he adheres to the path of strict rectitude in gaol. The court concluded that it was impossible to say that the punishment imposed was too harsh, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against conviction was dismissed, and the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders