R v Winston

[1992] QCA 181

COURT OF APPEAL  [1992] QCA 181

PINCUS JA
DAVIES JA
McPHERSON JA

CA NO 78 OF 1992

THE QUEEN

v.

STEVEN DOUGLAS WINSTON

BRISBANE

... DATE 12/6/92

JUDGMENT
McPHERSON JA:  The applicant was sentenced in the District court at Gympie in respect of two counts to which he pleaded guilty of unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation. The application for leave to appeal is, technically speaking, directed against the sentence of three years' imprisonment concurrent, that was imposed in respect of each of these offences.

However, on the occasion in question the District Court Judge who dealt with the matter also sentenced the applicant in respect of seven counts of obtaining by false pretences.  The latter offences were committed by the applicant by means of a credit card which he found in the first of the two vehicles that were taken.  In regard to those offences His Honour sentenced the applicant to 12 months' imprisonment.

He directed that the two sets of sentences, to which I have already referred, be served concurrently with a term of six months' imprisonment which the applicant was serving at the time when he pleaded guilty and was sentenced on the occasion on which we are concerned.  It is evidence that it is not possible simply to deal with the sentence imposed in respect of the unlawful use of motor vehicles separately from the other sentences imposed in respect of obtaining by false pretences, nor is it really possible to ignore that His Honour took what might on one view be considered a lenient course by directing that the sentences he imposed should all be concurrent as between both sentences and in relation to the sentence the applicant was already serving.

The offences in question were serious ones that involved taking a car in Brisbane, travelling in it to Gympie and then taking another car in Gympie, driving it around a local forest, damaging it and in the end causing it to burst into flames and be destroyed.  The damage or destruction suffered by each vehicle was, in terms of loss, of the order of $10,000.

What is more important than perhaps all these matters is that the applicant has a shocking history of criminal offences in the past.  He is only 26 years of age, but has committed numerous offences of the same and other kinds.  In the respondent Crown's written submissions before us there is a useful summary of those offences which classified them into four categories.  One is a count of possession of a prohibited plant; and another is 22 counts for offences involving dishonesty; five of unlawful use of a motor vehicle; five of stealing; three of receiving; six of false pretences; one of attempted false pretences, and one of imposition.

One of the stealing counts referred to there involved the theft of a motor vehicle; then there were five driving offences; two of dangerous driving; two of unlicensed driving; and one of driving unaccompanied on a leaner's permit; and finally there were seven offences showing what the written submission describes as disrespect for authority and the law.  That is to say three breaches of bail, one breach of probation, one escape from lawful custody, one being unlawfully at large and one failure to appear.

There really is nothing in my view that can be said in favour of this applicant or of this application.  When all those matters I have mentioned are considered it is my view that the application should be dismissed.

PINCUS JA:  I agree.

DAVIES JA:  The order is as indicated by Mr Justice McPherson.

-----