R v Sievers

[1993] QCA 51

[1993] QCA 051

COURT OF APPEAL

MACROSSAN CJ
PINCUS JA
McPHERSON JA

THE QUEEN

v.

LESLIE PHILLIP SIEVERS

BRISBANE

..DATE 26/02/93

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This application for leave to appeal against sentence relates to the sentences imposed upon the applicant in respect of 13 counts of misappropriation, one account of attempted misappropriation, three counts of false pretences and one count of receiving.  The effective sentence imposed below was one of 4 year imprisonment term.  The offences involved had been committed at different dates over a lengthy period in excess of two years from September 1990 until November 1992.

The circumstances of the offences involved the utilisation of a dishonest scheme whereby the applicant would purchase bank key cards, deposit false or stolen cheques into the account and then operate the automatic teller machines to withdraw funds.  That is an explanation of the misappropriation offences.  Employing that scheme the amount of money obtained over a 12 month period we are told was in excess of $34, 000.

The false pretence charge related to cheques valued at $690 which were cashed, and the receiving was in respect of a number of cheque stolen from a motor vehicle, some of which were to be used in the misappropriation scheme.

The applicant has an extensive criminal history involving offences of dishonesty and the convictions commence in the late 1960's.  Not only were the previous offences numerous, but one recent series of offences calls for particular mention.  In August 1989 the applicant was sentenced in respect of false pretences, stealing, uttering and forgery charges.  There were a number of counts and he was sentenced to custodial terms and one order that one term be cumulative upon another had the effect hat the sentence amounted to a total term of 2 years.

The applicant says that he was released on parole in August 1990 having been on home detention for a few months before that. The disturbing factor in this is that he commenced the present series of offences virtually immediately after the parole order began to operate, or without any significant gap anyhow, because the present offences started in September 1990.

The Judge below in view of the spread of the offences with which he had to deal would have been justified in considering a cumulative order but he did not do that.  He ordered on each count that the applicant be sentenced to a four-year term to be served concurrently.  He took into account the applicant’s plea  of guilty.

In view of the extensive criminal history and the circumstances of the commission of the offences with which the Judge had to deal, I do not think it is possible to say that the sentences imposed were excessive and therefore we would not be justified in interfering and I would refuse the application.

PINCUS JA: I agree.

McPHERSON JA: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

BRISBANE

... DATE

JUDGMENT