R v Green

[1995] QCA 255

COURT OF APPEAL

[1995] QCA 255

PINCUS JA
MOYNIHAN J

AMBROSE J

Appeal No 17 of 1995
THE QUEEN
v.

DAMIAN SHORN GREEN Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 28/04/95
PINCUS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against
sentence. The applicant having been born on 14 December 1977
was 16 at the time of committing the offences. Between
19 September 1994 and 27 October 1994 the applicant committed
a number of offences principally relating to unlawful use of
motor vehicles. The applicant was convicted on 23 December
1994. Mr Hamlyn-Harris, who has appeared for him today, has
informed us that on 28 October 1994, that is some two months
before this, the applicant was convicted of offences which
included breaking and entering and unlawful use of a motor
vehicle, both of which occurred in September 1994; Mr Hamlyn-
Harris has drawn our attention to the fact that on 28 October
1994 the applicant was sentenced to six months imprisonment in
respect to those two offences.
It is said that the applicant desires Mr Hamlyn-Harris to
argue that the offences for which he was convicted on
28 October 1994, that is the breaking and entering and the
unlawful use, were committed about the same time as, or in the
same period as, those for which he was convicted on 23
December 1994 and that this circumstance renders the penalty
which was imposed on 23 December 1994 inappropriate. That
penalty was six months detention cumulative upon the current
sentence being served. A conviction was recorded and the
applicant was disqualfied from holding or obtaining a driver's
licence. However, Mr Hamlyn-Harris has also been good enough
to inform us that on 28 October 1994 the applicant was
convicted of rioting, was sentenced to 12 months detention in
respect of that, to be released after having served 50 per
cent of that sentence and that the convictions for breaking
and entering and unlawful use of a motor vehicle on that same
date produced a concurrent sentence. So that in effect, there
has been no additional penalty in relation to the breaking and
entering or unlawful use in September 1994.

The basis of the argument then, which the applicant desires to have put, seems to me to have no foundation because if in fact the penalty which was imposed on 23 December 1994 were made concurrent there would, in effect, be no practical penalty imposed in respect of all these offences. It cannot be suggested that the six months detention is unreasonable in the light of the applicant's criminal record which is, indeed, very formidable. In short, although Mr Hamlyn-Harris has been of assistance to us, it does not appear to me that there is any significant argument which could be advanced against the learned magistrate's treatment of the case and I would refuse the application.

MOYNIHAN SJA: I agree with the order and reasons of the presiding Judge.

AMBROSE J: I agree also.

PINCUS JA: The application is refused.

-----