R v Savo [1994] QCA 513

Court of Appeal (Qld)|1994-10-25|Before: Davies JA, Pincus JA, Lee J

DAVIES JA: The applicant Frederick Savo was convicted in the District Court at Cairns on 3 May this year, having pleaded guilty to a substantial number of offences, all committed between 21 July and 12 October last year. Those offences were 10 of stealing, eight of breaking, entering and stealing, three of wilful damage, 18 of housebreaking and burglary, one of attempted burglary, six of breaking and entering a place with intent, five of attempted breaking and entering a place with intent and one of unlawful use of a motor vehicle.

31 December 1964. He is of Solomon Island and Torres Strait Island extraction but his family have spent a considerable time living in North Queensland and he has spent virtually the whole of his life living generally in that area. Prior to the commission of these offences the applicant had an extremely bad criminal history which commenced in Innisfail as long ago as July 1980. On that date, 1 July 1980, he was convicted of forgery and uttering. Over the period between July 1980 and the commission of the offences the subject of this application, the applicant has been convicted on about two or three occasions each year for offences involving dishonesty.

There was a period upon which the applicant has relied in his submissions between August 1992 and July 1993 when the applicant appears not to have committed any offences and during part of which period the applicant was in employment and, as he has said to us, trying to straighten his life out during that period. The applicant was sentenced for the offences to which I have just referred to an effective term of seven years' imprisonment. There was no recommendation made for eligibility for early parole. The offences were committed in Weipa, Innisfail and Cairns region, most of them, as I have indicated from the nature of the offences involved housebreaking or breaking into other places and stealing property. The property stolen exceeded $68,000 in value of which nearly $32,000 was never recovered.

The learned sentencing Judge in imposing that term of imprisonment took the view that but for some factors to which I will refer in a moment, an appropriate term would have been as long as 10 years' imprisonment but he made allowance for the applicant's plea of guilty at an early stage and his

co-operation with the authorities and the difficulties which the applicant must have had in his early life as he has outlined to us, including the early death of his mother and

The applicant's submission to this Court, which was very ably put up by him personally, was not that the sentence which was imposed by the learned sentencing Judge was too long. He takes no issue with that and he said, to use his terms, that he feels he has to pay his debt to society. His submission was rather that he should receive a recommendation from this Court for eligibility for early parole, mainly because of his prospects of rehabilitation arising out of matters which have arisen since the sentence which was imposed by the learned sentencing Judge.

The applicant has tendered to us an application which he has made to the Queensland Tertiary Admissions Centre to enable him to undergo a tertiary degree, or alternatively diploma course, in one of the social sciences. He has not heard the result of that application but he is keen to undertake a tertiary qualification. My impression of him, having heard him make submissions to this Court, is that he is a very intelligent man who if he applied himself would be able to undertake such a course successfully.

He has told us that the problems in his life prior to this, which have resulted in his committing the large number of offences which he has committed - I have already referred to those and perhaps I should add that many of those convictions were for multiple offences - that the problems have arisen partly from the family background to which I have referred but also from his dependence on alcohol. He has assured us that he has now seen the error of his ways and wishes to straighten out his life. I should say, however, that the learned sentencing Judge, to whom similar submissions were made, expressed considerable doubt about the genuineness of the applicant in that respect. He said in sentencing the applicant:

"Unfortunately, if there is something genuine about you, your conduct has been such that I can no longer accept that possibility."

The learned sentencing Judge had sentenced the applicant previously and both he and Judge Daly had imposed sentences on the applicant for quite serious offences which involved giving the applicant a chance to rehabilitate himself, a chance which on neither occasion the applicant took.

The applicant was still on probation when he committed the many offences the subject of the present appeal. I would certainly hope that the applicant is genuine in this case and as I have said I think that if the applicant is prepared to apply himself to his study there is prospect of rehabilitation notwithstanding the shocking record of the applicant, and the fact that he is now no longer a youth but a mature man.

We have had put before us some figures which indicate that the applicant, in addition to being eligible for parole at the half-way mark of his present sentence which would be

3 November 1997, will become eligible for home detention on

3 July 1997; will become eligible for work release on

2 September 1996; and will become eligible for leave of absence from gaol on 3 March 1996; that leave of absence, as I understand it, being such as would enable him to leave the gaol for the purposes of attending classes at the university.

It is unfortunate that at the moment the applicant is at the Lotus Glen Prison from where he would have some difficulty in attending the university on leave of absence. No doubt that would be a matter which would be taken into account by the prison authorities in considering matters of leave of absence such that if the applicant continues with what appear to be prospects of rehabilitationn and the prospect of attending a university course, that steps would be taken within the prison which would enable the applicant to obtain leave of absence

and to attend university at the earliest opportunity.

However, in my view, those are matters which are perhaps more appropriately judged by the prison and parole authorities at the appropriate time, rather than for assessment by this Court. For those reasons, notwithstanding the real possibility that the applicant has a prospect of rehabilitation, I would refuse the application.

PINCUS JA: The applicant appears not to have been able to convince himself that his ability is at a level which makes it inappropriate for him to commit what he, himself, acknowledges to be silly offences. He appears to be frustrated at his inability to settle down to a normal life. What he wants the Court to do is to accept his assurance that he is ready now or will soon be ready to face up to his problems, and therefore he suggests he should be released fairly soon.

That would not be right. The sentence imposed was a just one. The applicant would understand, I think, that the Court cannot discriminate to the extent which he desires in favour of those offenders who present as he does, as an intelligent and perhaps promising man, and against those who are unintelligent and who seem to have little hope. I agree with the order proposed.

LEE J: I agree with the reasons of the presiding Judge and the orders proposed.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (23 paragraphs)

Parties