R v Zuvela

[1995] QCA 612

COURT OF APPEAL

[1995] QCA 612

FITZGERALD P
DAVIES JA
THOMAS J

CA No 393 of 1995

THE QUEEN

v.

ANTHONY THOMAS ZUVELA  Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/11/95

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT:  This is an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the District Court at Cairns on 1 September 1995 after the applicant was convicted after a trial of the offence of arson on 18 November 1994.  The applicant, who is 22 years of age, 21 at the time of the trial, born on 4 November 1973, was sentenced to imprisonment for four years. 

Shortly stated, the applicant had been an employee of Brambles Linen Service and had resigned about a month before the incident.  On the date of the offence he lit a number of fires in the building of his former employer and caused damage of approximately $1 million.  He pleaded guilty, although the trial consisted of little more than putting the Crown to proof of its contentions.

He has a prior criminal history which is substantial, including break, enter and steal, wilful damage, receiving on two offences, burglary and two offences of stealing.  His offending commenced when he was 15 and a number of community based orders have been made to give him the benefit of his youth.

The sentencing Judge referred to a number of matters:  that it was a deliberate act causing significant damage;  that he had no justifiable grievance against his employer;  that he did not intend to physically harm anyone;  that he had a previous conviction although none were particularly serious,  nonetheless his criminal history showed a lack of respect for the property of others;  that he had previously had the benefit of community based orders;  that he told persistent lies to try to escape detection;  that he was still only 21 years old;  that deterrence is important;  the damage was substantial;  and that there was no remorse shown, nor other factors leading to an early parole recommendation.

Before this Court, counsel for the applicant fairly conceded that the head sentence was within range, having regard to earlier decisions of this Court, three to which our attention was drawn by counsel for both parties:  Clark, CA270 of 1995, judgment 25 August 1995;  Aufai and Moenoa, numbers 50 and 80 of 1995, judgment delivered 6 June 1995;  and Drummond, CA283 of 1993, judgment delivered 13 October 1993.

However, our attention was drawn to a number of factors, namely the youth of the offender, his reasonably good work history, his limited education and the absence of a profit motive or any danger to human life, and it was submitted that a recommendation for early parole was appropriate in all the circumstances.

Regrettably, I find myself unable to agree.  I can see nothing wrong with the exercise of the sentencing Judge's discretion and, in my opinion, the application should be refused.

DAVIES JA:  I agree.

THOMAS J:  I agree.

THE PRESIDENT:  The application is refused.

‑‑‑‑‑