R v Jones - [1997] QCA 132

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1997] QCA 132
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
C.A. No. 63 of 1997
Brisbane
Before Davies JA.

Thomas J.
Lee J.

[R v. Jones]

THE QUEEN

JEFFREY COLIN JONES

(Applicant) Appellant

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 27 May 1997

The applicant was sentenced in the District Court at Brisbane to five years' imprisonment on six counts of false pretences, with a recommendation that he be considered for parole after two years three months. The maximum penalty for such offences is five years, and it can be seen that the maximum sentence was here imposed, tempered only by a minor parole benefit and by the concurrency of the sentences.

The applicant is 46 years old and has a criminal career that commenced when he was 19. He has been imprisoned on eleven separate occasions, the last major occasion being in 1988 when he was sentenced to five years for misappropriation of property. It is unnecessary to detail the extensive record and it suffices to say that it is a very bad and lengthy record for offences of dishonesty.

The present offences involved the giving, over a two and a half month period, of six valueless cheques for household and computer goods valued at $25,728. No restitution was able to be made. The applicant had commenced a business under the name "Jeff Jones Agencies", opened a bank account which had no overdraft arrangement, and proceeded to purchase from various traders items such as a lounge suite, manchester items, two computers, two television sets, a VCR and associated equipment. The applicant was granted bail for these and other alleged offences. However, on his committal bail was revoked, and he then spent eleven months in pre-sentence custody before being dealt with. Proceedings on the other matters have not yet been finalised.

In the result, the learned sentencing judge considered that no declaration could be made under s. 161 of the Penalties & Sentences Act giving him any credit for the time spent in custody, and it was not taken into account.

The applicant went to trial on the present matters, but after a day spent on a voir dire followed by an adverse ruling, he pleaded guilty to the present counts.

Two main questions arise. Firstly, should he have been given some benefit for the time spent in custody? Secondly, overall are the sentences manifestly excessive?

Pre-sentence custody

As to the first point, he was originally granted bail in respect of the present and other offences. He was subsequently arrested for further offences which have yet to be dealt with. He was remanded in custody with respect to those further offences, no doubt because they were allegedly committed while he was already on bail in respect of the present and other offences. When the committal came on for hearing, bail was opposed by the Crown, and he was remanded in custody with respect to the present and other offences as well as the further offences. In…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [1997] QCA 132
Case: [1997] QCA 132
Decision Date: 27/05/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v. Jeffrey Colin Jones, the appellant challenged the sentence imposed on him by the District Court of Queensland. The appellant was convicted on six counts of false pretences and sentenced to five years' imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after two years and three months. The appeal focused on two primary issues: whether the appellant should have been granted some benefit for the time spent in custody prior to sentencing, and whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive.

The court first considered the issue of whether the appellant should have received credit for the eleven months spent in pre-sentence custody. It was determined that the appellant was not entitled to a declaration of time served under section 161 of the Penalties and Sentences Act because his pre-sentence custody was not solely in relation to the proceedings for these offences. However, the court recognised that varying benefits might be conferred upon offenders when there are concurrent causes for pre-sentence detention, not all of which are his own fault. The court found that the learned sentencing judge failed to consider the discretion he had to allow a partial benefit to the appellant with respect to the eleven months pre-sentence custody.

Regarding the level of sentence, the court acknowledged the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offence, but noted that the total loss to suppliers was around $25,000 and the offences occurred in the course of an attempt to run a business. The court concluded that a five-year sentence with minimal parole benefit was too high in all the circumstances. The court found that the sentences imposed should have been less than the maximum and should have contained appropriate credit for the pre-sentence custody.

The court allowed the appeal, set aside the sentences, and replaced them with concurrent sentences of four years' imprisonment with a recommendation that the appellant be considered for parole after one year and nine months. The court also directed that the time during which the appellant was in custody pending the appeal should count as part of the term of imprisonment under the sentences.

Orders