R v Harrison

[1994] QCA 410

[1994] QCA 410

COURT OF APPEAL

MACROSSAN CJ
PINCUS JA
AMBROSE J

CA No 208 of 1994

THE QUEEN

v.

WILLIAM SHADE HARRISON  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 24/08/94

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The applicant was convicted in May of his year on a charge of stealing a sum which was $650.  He was sentenced by a magistrate to imprisonment for six months for that offence.  The applicant is a 20 year old, but it has to be said he had a substantial criminal history.  Before coming to that, the circumstances of the offence can be mentioned.

The applicant, in September of last year, had gone to a restaurant in Fortitude Valley apparently to buy some food.  There were no staff members present at the time so after waiting for an interval he opened the cash register and took the sum in question.  A security officer, however, did pursue the applicant, and later the police joined in the chase and the applicant was apprehended and the sum which had been taken was wholly recovered.

It was said on the applicant's behalf at the time of sentencing, he having pleaded guilty and having cooperated with the police after being apprehended, that the offence was a spur of the moment matter, that the applicant had a drug problem, that it was likely that if sentenced for a custodial term he would spend a period in the watch-house.  The magistrate was told in fact that it was likely that he would spend some 30 days there, so the magistrate took into account that possibility, it must be assumed, since it had been specifically adverted to.  In fact we are told, to the extent that we should notice these subsequent events, that he spent 21 days of his sentence in the watch-house. 

The significant matter in terms of sentence, having in mind the applicant's youth, is his criminal record.  He was dealt with by the making of care and control orders for certain early offences, including an order for strict custody.  Later then, starting in October 1990, he was dealt with for a variety of offences and a number of different orders were made.  He was convicted and fined, we see; convicted and not punished in other cases.  He was placed on probation for three years in August 1991 for breaking and entering with intent on a number of charges as well as for unlawful use of a motor vehicle.  He has been ordered to perform community service. Quite significantly in June 1992 he was convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm while armed with an offensive weapon, and on that occasion was sentenced to a term of 12 months' imprisonment.  In June of the following year he was again convicted of assault occasioning bodily harm, and then we come up to the present matter.

When the applicant was sentenced by the magistrate he was dealt with also for a number of instances of failing to appear, that is breaches of the Bail Act. At the same time as his sentence to six months for the stealing offence, he was ordered to serve a term of three months' imprisonment for one breach of the Bail Act and a further term of three months for another breach. The effect of the Bail Act in section 33 is that the breaches and the penalties for those breaches had to be treated cumulatively; that is, the two periods of three months to which I have referred will have to be served on top of the six months.

Our attention was drawn to the further fact that following the imposition of these sentences he has been ordered to serve additional terms for other matters again. The penalty of six months imposed for stealing might be one which would call for particular scrutiny in the case of an average 20 year old, but in a case like this where the applicant has such an extensive criminal history, in my opinion it cannot be said that the penalty imposed was an excessive one. The breaches of the Bail Act clearly had to be dealt with separately and it is the Statute itself which has the effect of the terms imposed in respect of those breaches having to be served cumulatively.

The appeal itself is concerned of course only with the sentence imposed for stealing.  In my opinion no cause has been shown to interfere and I would refuse the application.

PINCUS JA:  I agree.

AMBROSE J:  I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The application is refused.

-----