R v Prentice

[2003] QCA 34

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Prentice [2003] QCA 34

PARTIES:

R
v
PRENTICE, Mark Paul
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 320 of 2002
DC No 310 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Beenleigh

DELIVERED ON:

14 February 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

7 February 2003

JUDGES:

Davies and Williams JJA and Cullinane J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court; each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1. Application for leave to appeal granted
2. Appeal allowed to the extent only of substituting a fine of $23,800.00 for the fine of $40,000.00

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant wound back odometers on used cars before selling them – where substantial fine imposed – where applicant had no reasonable means of paying the amount – whether the fine imposed was manifestly excessive

Fair Trading Act 1989 (Qld), s 40(a)
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 48

R v Australian Rent-a-car and Theodore Coppens, unreported, Dodds DCJ, 25 February 2000, considered
R v Kiripatea [1991] 2 Qd R 686, applied
R v QSD New Cars P/L and Steven Mark Conn, unreported, Newton DCJ, 29 November 2001, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf
T Rynne for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant/appellant appeared on his own behalf
C W Lohe, Crown Solicitor, for the respondent

1. DAVIES JA:  I agree with the reasons for judgment of Williams JA and with the orders he proposes.

1. WILLIAMS JA: The applicant, who appeared on his own behalf before this court, seeks leave to appeal against the quantum of the fine imposed upon him consequent upon his pleading guilty to 34 charges of breaching s 40(a) of the Fair Trading Act 1989 on the ground that it was manifestly excessive. The learned District Court judge imposed a fine of $40,000.00, which represented approximately $1,176.00 per offence. The applicant was allowed five years within which to pay the fine, and the default penalty was 12 months imprisonment.

1. The appellant in his written outline furnished a number of grounds on which he sought to challenge the fine.  Some of the matters particularised can be summarily rejected.  He claimed he was not given an opportunity to provide mitigating evidence, but he was represented by a solicitor and gave oral evidence before the sentencing judge on issues relevant to mitigation.  He then claimed that both he and the solicitor then representing him were overborne by the learned sentencing judge.  The transcript indicates that the judge adopted a fairly robust approach to the issue of sentencing but there is nothing in the material which would support the contentions raised by the applicant.

1. The only matter raised by the outline which needs further consideration is the assertion that he was dealt with as if he was a company rather than an individual…