The Queen v Gliddon

Case [2021] QDC 137

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

The Queen v Gliddon [2021] QDC 137

PARTIES:

THE QUEEN

V

ANTHONY GLIDDON

(defendant)

FILE NO:

330/19

DIVISION:

Criminal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

12 July 2021

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

29 June and 9 July 2021. Defendant’s written submissions dated 2 July 2021. Crown written submissions dated 5 July 2021.

JUDGE:

Smith DCJA

ORDER:

1.   I record a conviction.

2.   I sentence the defendant to 15 months’ imprisonment.

3.   I order the sentence be suspended forthwith and the defendant must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within the period of two years if he is to avoid being dealt for the suspended term of imprisonment.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCE – where defendant pleaded guilty to one count of fraud – whether the defendant honestly believed the law allowed “written off” caravans to be registered in Queensland – whether a fine should be imposed or a suspended sentence

LEGISLATION:

Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) s 408C
Evidence Act 1977 (Qld) s 132C
Motor Dealers and Chattel Auctioneers Act 2014 (Qld) s 62
Penalties and Sentences Act 1991 (Qld) s 12
Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) ss 83, 84, 85, 86, 89
Road Transport (Vehicle Registration) Regulations 2017 (NSW) rr 101, 102, 103
Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld) ss 4, 53
Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Vehicle Registration) Regulation 2010 (Qld) rr 17, 80, schedule 8

CASES:

Ostrowoski v Palmer [2004] HCA 30; (2004) 218 CLR 493, cited
R v Dillon Ex parte Attorney-General [2015] QCA 155; [2016] 1 Qd R 56; 253 A Crim R 492, cited
R v Elias [2013] HCA 31; (2013) 248 CLR 483, applied
R v Moxon [2015] QCA 65, distinguished
R v Singleton & Anor [2019] QCA 302, distinguished
The Attorney-General of the Northern Territory v SJE [2020] NTCA; 284 A Crim R 165; 353 FLR 322, applied

COUNSEL:

Mr D Finch for the Crown

Mr CFC Wilson for the defence
SOLICITORS:

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions for the Crown

Guest Lawyers for the defence

Introduction

  1. The defendant has pleaded guilty to one count of fraud. The count reads:

    “That on divers dates between 12 August 2013 and 18 August 2016 he dishonestly induced the Chief Executive of the Queensland Department of Transport to register caravans, an act they were entitled to abstain from doing.”

  2. I take into account the plea of guilty and reduce the penalty I would otherwise have imposed by reason of the plea. The plea of guilty is to a lesser charge than the original charges.

  3. If the matter had proceeded to trial it would have lasted about three weeks. In those circumstances full credit should be accorded to the plea of guilty which shows cooperation in the administration of justice and has saved the cost of a lengthy trial.

    The facts

  4. The defendant operated a business named Action Caravans from a shed located in…

Continue reading The Queen v Gliddon

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
The Queen v Gliddon [2021] QDC 137
Case
[2021] QDC 137
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of The Queen v Gliddon involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to one count of fraud. The defendant operated a business named Action Caravans and purchased written-off caravans from auction houses, removing their identifying numbers and reassigning new VINs before reselling them. The court needed to determine whether the defendant honestly believed that the law allowed him to register these "written off" caravans in Queensland, and if so, whether a fine should be imposed or a suspended sentence given. The defendant had a history of minor criminal activity and significant health issues, including coronary bypass grafting, stenting, and mental health conditions such as panic disorder, generalised anxiety disorder, major depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder.

The court considered the confusion surrounding the statutory provisions regarding the registration of written-off vehicles and found that while the defendant might have believed he was acting lawfully, he was also aware that he should not have omitted certain details in the registration process. The court concluded that the defendant's actions were intended to prevent further investigation into the caravans by the Queensland Department of Transport. The Crown argued that the defendant's dishonesty had obfuscated the compliance and registration process and caused uncertainty for purchasers. The court accepted that the defendant had a genuine belief that his actions were lawful but found that his intent to avoid scrutiny demonstrated a deliberate obfuscation of the legal process.

In sentencing, the court imposed a 15-month suspended sentence, noting the defendant's cooperation by pleading guilty and the significant impact of the legal proceedings on his health. The sentence was suspended with the condition that the defendant must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within two years. This decision highlights the importance of honesty and accuracy in vehicle registration processes and the consequences of deliberately misleading authorities.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. I record a conviction.

2. I sentence the defendant to 15 months’ imprisonment.

3. I order the sentence be suspended forthwith and the defendant must not commit another offence punishable by imprisonment within the period of two years if he is to avoid being dealt for the suspended term of imprisonment.

Background

Background to the litigation

If the matter had proceeded to trial it would have lasted about three weeks. In those circumstances full credit should be accorded to the plea of guilty which shows cooperation in the administration of justice and has saved the cost of a lengthy trial.The facts The defendant operated a business named Action Caravans from a shed located in Capalaba. In September 2016, police commenced operation Papa Wagon after a member of the public contacted them with concerns about the legitimacy of the caravans the defendant was selling. The defendant purchased caravans from auction houses and on sold them. He held two registered accounts with two auction houses, Pickles Auctions and Manheim Auctions. Most of the auctions were held in New South Wales but a small number were in Queensland and one in South Australia. The auction houses acted on behalf of insurance companies and major corporations and conducted salvage auctions to the public with respect to written off vehicles. Between January 2013 and December 2016, the defendant purchased 42 written off caravans from Manheim Auctions and 31 written off caravans from Pickles Auctions. The caravans purchased by him were advertised by the auction houses as being written off caravans. Tax invoices provided to the defendant indicated that the caravans were write offs. They were identified by the auction houses at point of sale and in the invoices provided as statutory write offs in the state in which they offered for sale. Two examples of the invoices have been tendered as Exhibit 4. The first invoice from Pickles dated 24 November 2014 notes “sold with no plates – statutory write off”. The second invoice from Manheim dated 15 May 2015 notes “statutory write off unable to be reregistered”. The caravans purchased by the defendant were commercially manufactured caravans such as Jayco and Coromal. Each caravan had three primary identifiers:1. A VIN number stamped into the frame of the caravan. If a vehicle, such as a caravan is statutory write off, it’s VIN number is recorded in the Written Off Vehicle Register (“WOVR”), the Register for Encumbered Vehicles (“REVS”) and into the National Exchange of Vehicle and Driver Information System (“NEVDIS”) which allows potential buyers to check for encumbrances prior to purchase.2. A chassis number compromising six alpha numeric characters usually the six digits of the VIN and stamped to the frame of the caravan.3. A compliance plate is affixed to the frame or body of the caravan with the manufacturer, make/model, VIN and manufacture date of the caravan. After the defendant purchased a written off caravan from an auction it would be delivered to his work shed in Capalaba where he removed the VINs, chassis numbers and in most cases the compliance plate. He typically painted over the existing VIN and chassis number and stamped in a new VIN that he obtained from Queensland Transport into the frame of the caravan. The new VINs assigned to the caravans were consistent with being issued for homemade caravans.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The crown argues that regardless, it does not really matter because of the criminality alleged here. Conclusion I do accept there is a degree of confusion surrounding these statutory provisions. Bearing in mind the provisions of s 132C of the Evidence Act and the shifting onus which falls upon the prosecution, I am satisfied that the defendant may well have had a belief that the written-off vehicles could be registered and used in Queensland. I do, however, find that he well knew (as evidenced by the plea) he should not have ticked “no” to question 11 or omitted to provide an answer to this. I infer, that the reason he did not correctly answer that question was to ensure that no further investigation of the relevant caravan was conducted by the Department or as the crown puts it to obfuscate the compliance and registration process in Queensland. At the least there would have been further requirements needed for inspection of the vans prior to registration in Queensland. It was a case that he did this, so that no questions would be asked by the Department about the caravans and/or no further investigations were conducted. Antecedents of the defendant The defendant was born on 15 January 1952 and is presently 69 years of age. He has a minor criminal history which is dated. He has some health issues. Exhibit 8, a report from Dr Singh dated 28 June 2021, discloses that the defendant had coronary bypass grafting surgery in 1994 and stenting done in March 2020. There was an acute coronary syndrome in November 2018 with a stent being supplied. He was admitted to hospital in May 2021 because of a prolonged episode of angina. He was stented on 26 May 2021 with a good result. The report from Tom Hogan, psychiatrist, (Exhibit 9) dated 28 June 2021 notes that Dr Hogan had treated him since 1996. Post-operatively after the 1996 bypass operation, the defendant developed severe panic disorder symptoms. He also developed depression. In summary, he has a panic disorder with agoraphobia, generalised anxiety disorder and major depression. There is also a chronic post-traumatic stress disorder arising out of sexual abuse when he was a child. The present legal situation has been quite stressful for him and has had a major impact on him both emotionally and financially. He is medicated.Crown submissions The Crown submits that accurate and honest disclosure of the previous registration status and details of each caravan would have provided the Queensland department with the necessary information to discover each van’s status. It is submitted that the objective seriousness as a consequence of the defendant’s dishonesty, obfuscated the compliance and registration process in Queensland and caused uncertainty for the purchasers as to the title of the caravans. The objective seriousness of his dishonesty increased after he became a licensed motor dealer. It is submitted there is a public importance of honesty and accuracy in the completion of such documents and general deterrence, particularly those engaged in the motor industry as of paramount importance. Commercial dealings with motor vehicles depend upon the maintenance of the integrity of the system and the identification of the vehicles. There is no evidence in this case the caravans were unsafe or unroadworthy however.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

A vehicle which is a “total loss” in New South Wales is a “written-off light vehicle”. A “written-off light vehicle” is automatically a “statutory written-off light vehicle” unless it has been repaired and then registered when it then becomes a “inspected written-off light vehicle”. Section 84 of the New South Wales act provides:“84 Registration of written-off light vehicles(cf VR Act, s 16C)(1)Transport for NSW must not register, renew or transfer the registration of any light vehicle (or if the vehicle is registered, Transport for NSW must cancel the registration of the vehicle) if its vehicle identifier is the same as the vehicle identifier of a statutory written-off light vehicle or an interstate written-off light vehicle.(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply if the vehicle is the subject of an authorisation to repair and--(a) the application for registration is accompanied by a light vehicle certificate of compliance in relation to the vehicle, or(b) Transport for NSW is satisfied that the vehicle is of a class exempt by the statutory rules from the obligation to be the subject of a light vehicle certificate of compliance.(3)If Transport for NSW cancels the registration of a light vehicle under this section, Transport for NSW must immediately notify the registered operator of the vehicle of the cancellation.(4) Despite section 2.8 of the Motor Accident Injuries Act 2017 and section 14(3) of the Motor Accidents Compensation Act 1999 , a third-party policy (within the meaning of those Acts) is not cancelled immediately upon cancellation of registration of a light vehicle under this section and continues to have effect until the day on which the registered operator of the vehicle is given notice of the cancellation of registration.(5) Transport for NSW must not register, renew or transfer the registration of a light vehicle if to do so would breach a condition imposed by Transport for NSW on an authorisation to repair.(6)In this section—"interstate written-off light vehicle" means a light vehicle recorded on a register of written-off vehicles (however described) of another jurisdiction as--(a) a statutory written-off light vehicle or similar (being a light vehicle that is not permitted to be registered in that jurisdiction by the vehicle registration authority of that jurisdiction), or(b) a repairable written-off light vehicle or similar (being a light vehicle that may in certain circumstances be registered in that jurisdiction), but only if that vehicle has not been registered in Australia since being so recorded.” A New South Wales statutory write-off may only be registered if it has an authorisation to repair and a Certificate of Compliance. Section 86 of the RTA provides:“86 APPLICATIONS FOR AUTHORISATIONS(cf VR Act, s 16E)(1)An eligible person may apply to Transport for NSW for the issue of an authorisation to repair a light vehicle.(2) An application for the issue of an authorisation--(a) must be in a form approved by Transport for NSW, and(b) must be accompanied by a record of an assessment made in accordance with Division 3 that the vehicle has not suffered damage of a type specified in the statutory write-off assessment criteria, and(c) must be accompanied by any fee fixed for that purpose by Transport for NSW under section 271.(3) Transport for NSW may require an applicant to submit such other information as Transport for NSW thinks fit.(4) In determining an application, Transport for NSW must take into consideration any factors prescribed by the statutory rules.(5) Transport for NSW may refuse the application or may issue an authorisation to repair the vehicle unconditionally or subject to any of the following conditions--(a) a condition that the vehicle cannot be registered in the name of a person other than the applicant for a specified period or for an indefinite period,(b) any condition of a class prescribed by the statutory rules.(6) If the vehicle is of a class of vehicles exempt by the statutory rules from the obligation to be the subject of a light vehicle certificate of compliance, the authorisation to repair must state that fact.”