R v Ford

[1996] QCA 358

COURT OF APPEAL

[1996] QCA 358

PINCUS JA DOWSETT J FRYBERG J

CA No 287 of 1996
THE QUEEN
v.

GREGORY ALAN FORD Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 10/09/96
100996 T21-22/JB M/T COA217/96
FRYBERG J: The applicant was sentenced in the District Court at
Southport on 26 June on 19 charges of false pretences. The
offences were committed between 28 January and 6 September 1995.

He was sentenced to imprisonment for two years.

At the time of sentencing he was 33 years of age and had a considerable prior criminal history. That history began in Victoria in 1981 when he was 18 years of age with charges of burglary and theft and continued in a manner which one might almost describe as unabated until the sentence now sought to be the subject of leave to appeal.

He had in that history numerous offences of dishonesty and outstanding in the record was a sentence in 1993 of two years imprisonment for 22 charges including 19 of false pretences. An appeal to this Court, on grounds not dissimilar to those now advanced, was dismissed.

The circumstances of the applicant are relied upon as a basis for the present application in so far as it is said they included the fact that a company for which the applicant had performed work and which owed him money went into liquidation. The other circumstances seem to suggest that that was not, by any means, the sole cause of the offences. The offences, which all involved the drawing of cheques on accounts with a number of banks, which the applicant knew would not be honoured, enabled the applicant to purchase goods that included not only groceries and clothing, but also power tools, plumbing material, fuel, a video recorder, roofing, a typewriter, scales and paint. The 100996 T21-22/JB M/T COA217/96

goods were, in large measure, sold to pawnbrokers or at hotels.

Their value was $5,300 and none of it was recovered.

The applicant pleaded guilty and did not put the Crown to the cost of a trial. In sentencing him the learned District Court Judge took into account an offer to pay compensation but he also, quite rightly, took into account the very considerable criminal record which the applicant had and the fact that by the time of the trial none of the property had been recovered and it would have been open to him, at least, to take into account the fact that no restitution had been paid.

The head sentence of two years was not challenged in argument before us and that rightly was not challenged. However, Mr Lynch, on behalf of the applicant, submitted that the error in the exercise of the discretion lay in not recommending an early parole period. I am quite unable to see why the Judge was obliged to make such a recommendation. The discretion, which was reposed in him, was one which, in my view, clearly encompassed a refusal to make such a recommendation and, indeed, that was the course which was followed when the applicant was last before this Court. I see no distinction of any substance between the situation in this case and the situation in that one. If anything it could be said that he has been dealt with lightly.

In my judgment the application should be dismissed.

PINCUS JA: I agree with the order proposed. It appears to me
100996 T21-22/JB M/T COA217/96
that the sentence imposed was one which was reasonable in the
circumstances.

DOWSETT J: I also agree.

PINCUS JA: The order will be application dismissed.

-----