The Queen v Hunt

[1992] SASC 2935

COURT IN THE FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL KING CJ(1), COX(2) AND BOLLEN(3) JJ

CWDS
Criminal Law - Sentence on forgery and uttering of cheque for $2,700 - offence detected before loss incurred - sentence 15 months with non-parole period of 8 months suspended on bond to do 96 hours community service not excessive.

HRNG ADELAIDE, 17 June 1992 #DATE 17:6:1992
Counsel for the Appellant:                Mr. C.J. Kourakis
Solicitor for the Appellant:             David Stokes and
  Associates
Counsel for the Respondent:             Mr. P.R. Brebner
Solicitor for the Respondent:             Mr. B.M. Selway
  Crown Solicitor

ORDER
Appeal dismissed.

JUDGE1 KING CJ This is an appeal against sentences imposed for the crime of forgery and the crime of uttering. The appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for 15 months on each count, the sentences to be served concurrently. A non-parole period of eight months was fixed. The sentence was suspended upon the appellant entering into a recognisance in the sum of $200 to be of good behaviour for a period of two years and to perform 96 hours community service. 2. The appellant has appealed to this court. The sole complaint made by Mr. Kourakis who appeared for the appellant was that the sentence of 15 months was manifestly excessive. No complaint is made with respect to the condition of community service included in the bond. Mr. Kourakis has contended that having regard to the amount involved, and the nature of the transaction constituting the crime, a sentence of 15 months is excessive. 3. The appellant became aware of the existence of a cheque form which had apparently been stolen from a home unit. She collaborated in some way, not fully disclosed in the evidence, in the forgery of a cheque on that cheque form. That cheque was deposited into her bank account. Before any money was drawn out of the account, the forgery was discovered and, therefore, there was no loss. 4. The maximum sentence for the crime is, of course, imprisonment for life. As Mr. Kourakis has properly pointed out, that maximum sentence is quite unrealistic for this type of offence, and really has no relevance to the fixing of the sentence for the actual offending. He has drawn an analogy with attempted false pretences and has contended that the sentence should be related to the maximum which would be available if the crime charged were attempted false pretences. 5. I think perhaps some guidance can be obtained by a sentencing judge in this type of case from that analogy, but of course the analogy is by no means complete, and in the end, the judge has to sentence not for some other offence, but for the offence of which the appellant has been convicted, namely, forgery and uttering. 6. The offence was certainly not the worst of its kind. The amount is substantial but not huge, and the offending did not get as far as the appellant gaining any advantage from it. Nevertheless, the intention was there and the law does regard the forging of a purported valuable security as having a seriousness of its own, quite apart from the fraud which is attempted thereby. 7. In my opinion, looking at all the circumstances, the sentence of 15 months cannot be said to be manifestly excessive and I will dismiss the appeal. The order of the court is appeal dismissed.

JUDGE2 COX J This was a single piece of dishonesty, at the lower end of the scale so far as forgery and uttering offences are concerned. I myself think that the total sentence of 15 months imprisonment with 96 hours of community service was on the high side, but I do not think it could possibly be described as manifestly excessive. I would dismiss the appeal.

JUDGE3 BOLLEN J I would dismiss the appeal for the reasons already mentioned.