R v Wrigley

[1997] QCA 328

COURT OF APPEAL

[1997] QCA 328

PINCUS JA
McPHERSON JA
de JERSEY J

CA No 291 of 1997

THE QUEEN

v.

BRUCE KEVIN WRIGLEY  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 28/08/97

JUDGMENT

de JERSEY J:  The applicant, when aged 47 years, committed five offences of false pretences and two of obtaining credit by fraud.  He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment on each of the false pretences and 10 months on each of the others.  The sentences were concurrent with a recommendation for parole after seven months.  Five months of pre-sentence custody was declared time to have been served under the sentence. 

The false pretences offences involved obtaining goods and services by presenting cheques which were dishonoured.  The amounts involved were small and added up to about $200.  In relation to the obtaining credit by fraud, the amounts were somewhat larger.  Again, they related to things like obtaining accommodation at a hotel for a period.  That involved some $1500.  In any event, the aggregate of the amounts involved in all of the offences was a little over $2,000.  None of that has been recovered and restitution is plainly unlikely.

The applicant was apparently emboldened to take this course because he believed he was owed $2,000 for past work, which he expected to be paid, and he also claimed to have believed that he would be able to obtain work at West End where he had previously been employed. 

But, it was plainly the past criminal history of the applicant which led to His Honour's imposing these sentences.  It is an eight-page record.  Between 1969 and 1997 he was convicted of 38 charges of false pretences, 31 charges of stealing, 39 of forgery, 23 of uttering, 12 of forging and uttering, 11 of imposition, three of obtaining credit by fraud and one charge of failing to pay for accommodation.  Save for six years, since 1969, he has been convicted of offences in every year up to now.  He has been punished in various ways, including a term of imprisonment of 18 months at one stage.  He is plainly a persistent offender.

It was submitted for the applicant that the time he had spent on remand, some five months, was really enough time in custody for these offences.  Mrs McGinness submitted that that was really equivalent to a 10-month sentence and submitted in writing that the appropriate order would have been a sentence of that order, which would have facilitated an immediate release.  She added that an order for compensation might have been made.  The obvious answer to that is that there would be no reasonable prospect that compensation, if ordered, would be paid. 

She ultimately submitted that the learned Judge gave too little weight to the nature of the offences and too much weight to the applicant's criminal history, but, in my view, the learned Judge did properly balance the competing considerations.  If the 18-month term was on the high side, then it is, nevertheless, not out of the range and in the end, I am not persuaded that these sentences were manifestly excessive such that this Court would be entitled to interfere in any way.  I would therefore refuse the application.

McPHERSON JA:  I agree.  The applicant's past record is very much against him and I think really precludes us from interfering with this sentence, even if we were otherwise disposed to do so.  I would also dismiss the application.

PINCUS JA:  I agree.

McPHERSON JA:  The order is that the application for leave to appeal is refused.

-----