R v Provic

[2003] QCA 317

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	R v Provic [2003] QCA 317
PARTIES:	R v PROVIC, Gordon (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 130 of 2003 DC No 960 of 2003 DC No 809 of 2003 DC No 926 of 2003 DC No 927 of 2003 DC No 2456 of 2002
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING  COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX	24 July 2003
TEMPORE ON:
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	24 July 2003
JUDGES:	de Jersey CJ, Mackenzie and Helman JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGEMENT AND PUNSIHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS OTHER MATTERS – whether sentencing judge correctly exercised sentencing discretion
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf M Copley for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I will invite Mr Justice Helman to deliver
the first judgment.
HELMAN J: This is an application for leave to appeal against
sentences imposed upon the applicant on 29 April 2003. He
claims that the sentences were manifestly excessive.
The applicant came before the District Court at Brisbane on
29 April 2003 to answer two indictments - one ex officio - in
which fourteen offences were alleged, and charge sheets
alleging fifteen offences. There were nine counts on the
ex officio indictment: three of unlawful entry to vehicles
with intent, three of stealing, one of receiving, and two of
fraud. The other indictment had five counts: one of entering
premises with intent to commit an indictable offence in the
premises, three of breaking, entering and stealing, and one of
attempting to enter premises with intent to commit an
indictable offence in the premises. All offences were
allegedly committed in 2002 and all of the "premises" were
motor vehicles.
The applicant pleaded guilty to each charge against him, and
was sentenced to imprisonment for eight months on each count
of unlawful entry to vehicles with intent, on the count of
entering premises with intent, and on each count of breaking,
entering and stealing. On each of the remaining counts on the
indictments he was sentenced to imprisonment for six months.
He was sentenced to imprisonment for three months on each of
nine of the summary offences, to imprisonment for one month on
one, and to fines totalling $1,600 on the remaining five
charges. All of the sentences of imprisonment were to be
served concurrently and he was allowed eighteen months to pay
the fines.
In January 2001, in the Beenleigh District Court, the
applicant had been sentenced to imprisonment for nine months
on charges of assaults occasioning bodily harm and unlawful
use; the sentences to be suspended after he had served 150
days, which 150 days equalled the time he had had in
pre-sentence custody. The operational period was to be three
years. The learned sentencing judge on 29 April 2003 ordered
that the applicant serve the unserved remainder of his
sentences imposed in January 2001. Those sentences were
ordered to be cumulative upon the sentences imposed on
29 April 2003.

The applicant was born on 1 April 1966, and so was thirty- seven years old when he was sentenced. He has a long criminal history beginning in 1983 and containing a large number of offences of dishonesty, often related to motor vehicles, and drug offences.

In arriving at the head sentences of imprisonment for eight months, the learned sentencing judge took into account the applicant's pleas of guilty, the ten months he had been in pre-sentence custody but which could not be deemed to be time served under any sentences imposed, the fact that some offences were committed while he was at large with bail, and the numerous summary offences he had committed. His Honour thus arrived at an outcome which reflected the applicant's total criminality. His Honour ordered the whole of the unserved portions of the suspended sentences be served because of the applicant's early return to his persistent offending. The effect of his Honour's orders was to require the applicant to serve a further one year in prison. His Honour observed that although the applicant had been said to have a reasonable employment history, there seemed no real prospect of his refraining from continuing to commit offences.

Bearing in mind the applicant's history and the number of offences his Honour was required to deal with, I see no merit whatever in this application. The sentences imposed fell within the bounds of a sound sentencing discretion. I should refuse the application.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: I agree.

MACKENZIE J: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

-----