R v Henderson

[1992] QCA 485

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 485

PINCUS JA
McPHERSON JA

MOYNIHAN J

CA NO 227 OF 1992
THE QUEEN
v.

JOHN WILLIAM HENDERSON

Applicant

BRISBANE
... DATE 30/09/92
JUDGMENT

PINCUS JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence by Mr. Henderson who has done the best on his own behalf that you could expect.

He was convicted on 7 August 1992 of one charge of receiving and one charge of dangerous driving. He received five years imprisonment on the former and 18 months imprisonment on the latter. The case started in the District Court as a contested

___________________________________________________________________________________

______________

4th Floor, The Law Courts, George Street, Brisbane, Q. 4000 Tel:[phone]
Fax:[phone]

matter but as Mr. Henderson has informed us, and the record supports this, he changed his plea to one of guilty on the second day of the trial.

On the morning of 1 April 1992, the police at Gympie attempted to intercept a vehicle and when they attempted to do so it sped away pursued by the police. In the ensuing pursuit the vehicle travelled up to a speed of 140 kilometres per hour in a 60 kilometre per hour zone, it travelled sideways through an intersection, and was driven through red lights past another vehicle on the wrong side of the road. The police lost contact with the vehicle but later located it and then the applicant was detained.

He tells us today that he was not in fact driving the vehicle, but of course that is quite inconsistent with his plea of guilty and with the conviction recorded against him. He was sentenced on the basis that he was the driver and correctly so sentenced. When the vehicle was searched $5,000 in cash and other property from a break and enter of a nightclub at Ingham was found. The applicant pleaded guilty to receiving $12,000, cigarettes and other property from that offence.

The applicant is 37 years of age, has a very sad criminal history and it goes right back to his period as a child. He had a deprived childhood and he is a person for whom one must feel pity rather than against whom one would feel anger. Nevertheless, the fact remains that there has never been any but a quite brief period of his life when he has not been in some sort of trouble with the law.

His criminal record, as has been pointed out during the argument, extends to six pages and he has of course been to gaol. On occasions he has been to gaol for substantial periods. The Judge's comments on sentence appear to me to be apposite with the reservation that, as has been pointed out by the applicant, there seem to be some irrelevant remarks contained in it dealing with another case which the Judge had apparently dealt with which had been discussed in the newspaper and it may be thought unfortunate that those irrelevancies intruded. However, they do not seem to me to have affected the Judge's consideration of the matter.

His Honour properly regarded the applicant as a man with a very bad record who had committed offences which required severe punishment. His Honour correctly pointed out that the driving offence could well have resulted in someone's death and that the receiving offence was a serious one.

The applicant has alleged that there were various mistakes made by the Judge in the course of his treatment of the matter, but none of them seem to me to be matters which can be substantiated.

In particular the applicant's criticism of the Judge's discussion of the offence which the applicant committed in 1975, and for which he was sentenced to six years imprisonment, seem to me groundless.

The almost horrendously long history of crime, mainly - it must be confessed - minor crime but some serious crime, which Mr. Henderson has committed makes one wonder whether he can ever see his way clear to leading a normal life. It is, as I have said, really a sad case. One cannot but conclude that the sentence imposed was a proper one and I, for one, would dismiss the application for leave to appeal against it.

McPHERSON JA: I agree.

MOYNIHAN J: So do I.

PINCUS JA: The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused. The Court will now adjourn.