R v Vogt

[1992] QCA 239

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 239

MACROSSAN CJ
DAVIES JA

PINCUS JA

CA No 111 of 1992

THE QUEEN

v.

PAUL ASHLEY VOGT

(Appellant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 16/7/92

..JUDGMENT

1

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: This is an application for leave to appeal

against sentence in respect of offences committed on 6

September 1991 and 7 August 1991. The applicant pleaded not

guilty when charged with an offence of breaking and entering a

dwelling-house with intent on 6 September 1991, and after

trial was found guilty and then pleaded guilty to a further

charge that on 7 August 1991 he had broken and entered a

dwelling-house with intent and also, that he had stolen a sum

of property on that occasion. In respect of the two breaking
and entering charges, he was sentenced to a term of three
years. It is obvious from the learned trial judge's
sentencing remarks that he made a very poor impression upon

the judge.

The judge mentioned that the applicant was one of four

involved in the breaking and entering on 6 September. He said

he appeared to have shown no remorse at any time and exhibited

a total refusal to co-operate with the authorities. Some of

the stolen property was still outstanding, valued, it was

said, at about $2,500. The sentencing judge inferred that he

pleaded guilty to the second offence only because his

fingerprints had been found in the dwelling-house in question.

He said that the applicant had a very bad criminal history and

had shown himself to be a persistent and determined thief who

learnt nothing from the time which he had previously spent in

2

prison. When we look at the applicant's record, it seems to

me that these observations appear to be established.

He is an 18 year old, but his offences start in February of

1988. On the 23rd of that month, we see that he was first

dealt with for breaking, entering, and stealing. Thereafter,

a number of other offences of dishonesty were committed,

including further offences of breaking, entering, and

stealing. Coming a little closer to the relevant time, his
record discloses that in March of 1991 he was dealt with for
various offences including 13 charges of stealing and was
sentenced to six months' imprisonment and put on probation for

three years. His criminal history showed that he was engaged

in criminal activities again in July of 1991. This must be

very shortly after the time he was released from custody from

the six months' term imposed in March of that year. On 13

August 1991 he broke and entered a dwelling-house with intent.

There were two such charges, and on 5 September, for that and

for other criminal activity he was dealt with, and was placed

on probation for three years. The result is that two terms of

probation were running at the time of the commission of the

offences with which we are concerned. Indeed, the very day
after 5 September when he was placed on probation on the
second of the two occasions that I mentioned, he committed the

further offence of breaking and entering a dwelling-house, one

of the two matters we are concerned with.

It seems to me that he has been given every chance in the

3

past, but that he is just unfortunately a most determined
offender. It is necessary for an appropriate deterrent to be
applied to discourage both him and others who may be similarly

inclined. Even though he is a young man, with his unfortunate

history and criminal tendencies it seems to me that it cannot

be said that the sentences imposed which he seeks to challenge

can be regarded as excessive and I would refuse his

application.

PINCUS JA: I agree.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The application is refused.

_____

4