R v Priman

99.65

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA THOMAS JA MUIR J

CA No 426 of 1998
THE QUEEN
v.

MARTIN DESMOND PRIMAN

Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 15/03/99
150399 D.1 T12/TW12 M/T COA47/99
DAVIES JA: The applicant for leave to appeal against
sentence was sentenced to three years imprisonment on 30
October last on five counts of unlawful possession of a
motor vehicle.

The applicant's unlawful activities were uncovered by an undercover policeman who offered to buy stolen vehicles from him. This occurred on five occasions, each of them resulting in the counts the subject of the present appeal.

The applicant was conducting what was plainly an unlawful business in a business-like way making contact with the undercover police officer shortly after. In each case, a car was stolen and sold to him for a negotiated price.

On one occasion he indicated to the officer that together they could make a lot of money. Curiously the applicant who was 37 years of age has a very limited criminal history; the only matters of relevance being two counts of receiving in 1993 and one in 1990 of being found in an enclosed yard without lawful excuse.

When apprehended the applicant declined to be interviewed but later indicated a plea of guilty. It is not clear whether or not that was an early plea.

At the time of commission of these offences the
applicant was supporting a wife and children and was
150399 D.1 T12/TW12 M/T COA47/99
running two businesses. It was submitted on his behalf
at the sentence hearing that the financial harm to
employees of his businesses was a relevant factor in
imposing sentence.

No doubt the effect on others will always be taken into account in sentencing an offender, but in a case like this that consideration cannot be other than a minor one. The most important factor in my view is the need to deter professional businesses of stealing such as this, which are often difficult to detect other than by the use of undercover operatives such as occurred in this case.

In this case the main complaint of the applicant was the lack of a recommendation for parole. It is not submitted that the sentence of three year's imprisonment is manifestly excessive.

Implicit in that submission appears to be a submission that the learned sentencing Judge failed to have regard to the plea of guilty, but it does not follow, in my view, that His Honour failed to have regard to it from the fact he did not make a recommendation.

Indeed, in my view the sentence which was imposed,
having regard to the plea of guilty, was not outside the
appropriate range. Indeed, comparable authorities
referred to in the written outline indicate that the
sentence imposed was an appropriate one.
150399 D.1 T12/TW12 M/T COA47/99

The applicant's plea of guilty, the fact that he had a drug dependence problem and the other factors which I have mentioned have, in my view, adequately been taken into account in the sentence which was imposed. I would therefore refuse the application.

THOMAS JA: I agree.

MUIR J: I agree.

DAVIES JA: The application is refused.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Martin Desmond Priman applied for leave to appeal against his sentence. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment on five counts of unlawful possession of a motor vehicle. The offences were uncovered by an undercover policeman who bought stolen vehicles from him on five occasions. The applicant was running a professional business of stealing vehicles and was apprehended after making contact with the undercover officer. He declined to be interviewed by police but later indicated a plea of guilty. The applicant submitted that the sentence was excessive and that the learned sentencing judge failed to take into account the plea of guilty, his drug dependence problem and the financial harm to his employees. The applicant also complained that no recommendation for parole was made.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing judge was manifestly excessive and whether the judge had failed to take into account the relevant mitigating factors. The court also needed to decide whether the absence of a recommendation for parole was a valid ground for appeal.

The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and that the learned sentencing judge had adequately taken into account the mitigating factors. The court noted that comparable authorities referred to in the written outline indicated that the sentence imposed was an appropriate one. The court held that the absence of a recommendation for parole was not a valid ground for appeal as it did not follow that the learned sentencing judge failed to have regard to the plea of guilty from the fact that he did not make a recommendation. The court held that the applicant's plea of guilty, his drug dependence problem and the other factors mentioned had been adequately taken into account in the sentence which was imposed. The application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established