R v Pearce - [1999] QCA 287

99.287

COURT OF APPEAL
de JERSEY CJ
BYRNE J

WHITE J

CA No 54 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.

CHRISTOPHER JOHN PEARCE AKA McMILLAN

BRISBANE
..DATE 27/07/99
270799 T9/JAP22 M/T COA 168/99
WHITE J: The applicant for leave to appeal against
sentence was convicted on his own pleas of guilty on 16
February this year of 14 indictable offences committed
between 30 July 1997 and 2 September 1998 and two
summary offences.

The indictable offences were six counts of fraud with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of wilful damage to property, four counts of fraud and three counts of attempted fraud. The two summary offences concerned possession of property; motor vehicles believed to be tainted. The applicant was aged between 41 and 42 years at the time of committing these offences. He does have an extensive criminal history.

A number of those offences are driving offences associated with the excessive consumption of alcohol. However, there are included offences for dishonesty including theft and false pretences. These present offences are by far the most serious that he has committed. Today, the applicant who appears on his own behalf submits that all of his current criminal activity was due to his alcohol and gambling addiction which he is now addressing in prison.

In 1997 he was convicted of stealing and given a six month term of imprisonment wholly suspended for two years. These offences were committed during the operational period of the suspended sentence. The applicant's course of criminal conduct in respect of 270799 T9/JAP22 M/T COA 168/99

these offences began by the use of false documentation
to obtain finance for the purchase of motor vehicles.

This conduct constitutes counts 1, 2 and 9 on the indictment. He obtained accommodation for which he was unable to pay and damaged one of the rooms in a hotel. This conduct constitutes counts 4, 5, 8 and 3 on the indictment. He bought or attempted to buy goods using cheques which were not met on presentation. These offences constituted counts 6 and 7 on the indictment.

He obtained a credit card using false identification and obtained goods using it. He made no repayments on the card and this constitutes count 10. The conduct giving rise to count 11 was an attempted purchase of some $180,000-odd worth of cigarettes with a cheque which was not met on presentation. He also purchases jewellery with a false cheque and this constituted count 12.

Counts 13 and 14 related to the deposited cheques which were then drawn on by the applicant but which were not met when presented. The learned sentencing Judge imposed terms of imprisonment of three years and six months in respect of counts 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 14. Twelve months' imprisonment in respect of counts 3, 4, 5 and 8 and a term of one and a half years' imprisonment in respect of count 11. All of those sentences were to be served concurrently.

270799 T9/JAP22 M/T COA 168/99
The…

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 Pearce

Details

AGLC: R v Pearce [1999] QCA 287
Case: [1999] QCA 287
Decision Date: 27/07/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Pearce, the applicant appealed against his sentence, which was imposed after he pleaded guilty to multiple indictable and summary offences. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate, particularly in light of the applicant's claims that his criminal conduct was driven by alcohol and gambling addictions. The applicant also sought an earlier parole recommendation than the one imposed by the sentencing judge.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inappropriate, and whether the sentencing judge had adequately considered the mitigating factors presented by the applicant, such as his addictions and early guilty plea. The court also considered whether the parole recommendation was reasonable given the nature and circumstances of the offences.

The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the applicant's guilty plea and cooperation with police, as well as the serious nature of the offences, which were committed over a significant period and while the applicant was on bail and serving a suspended sentence. The court concluded that the sentences, including the parole recommendation, were appropriate and dismissed the appeal against sentence. The Chief Justice and other judges concurred in this decision, leading to the refusal of the application.

Orders