//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[1999] QCA 129
appellant. Application refused
The Court of Appeal upheld a two-and-a-half-year cumulative prison sentence for serious property offences committed by a man who was already serving six years for drug trafficking. The Court found that even though some stolen property was used in the drug operation, the property crimes were serious enough to warrant separate punishment. The offences were professional in nature (involving disguising stolen vehicles), involved over $100,000 in property, and were committed while the man was on bail. The Court accepted the sentence had been reduced to avoid being 'crushing' and to recognise the man's co-operation and guilty plea. The appeal was refused.
AI-generated legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Check the cited source, and for advice about your situation consult a qualified Australian lawyer.
THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty on 14 December 1998 in the District Court at Rockhampton to six counts of unlawful possession of a motor vehicle, four counts of receiving stolen property, one count of stealing, one count of fraud and two counts of breaking and entering premises and committing an indictable offence.
No linked legislation citations have been extracted yet.
On 16 December 1998 he was sentenced to two and a half years' imprisonment on each count concurrent with each other but cumulative upon the sentence he was already serving. As no parole recommendation was made in respect of the earlier sentence, or in respect of this sentence, he will be eligible for release on parole after serving half the combined sentences less the declaration made as to time already served, in this case it seems in approximately April 2002.
The applicant claims the sentence was manifestly excessive; that these offences occurred in the same period as the drug offences to which he was earlier sentenced and that some of the stolen goods involved in these offences were used in the drug production and that therefore he should have received a sentence concurrent and no longer than the sentence imposed in the Supreme Court.
His prior criminal history includes convictions for dishonesty since 1989, the most serious being an armed robbery in company for which he was sentenced to six years' imprisonment in 1993. He has also been sentenced to imprisonment for drug offences, most recently on 26 October 1998 when he was sentenced to the six years' imprisonment for trafficking in cannabis and to lesser sentences on other drug-related charges.
There is nothing to suggest in the sentencing remarks of Justice Demack on that occasion that these offences were taken into account when imposing the term of imprisonment of six years. The sentence the subject of this application was made cumulative upon that six year sentence.
The facts of the subject offences are as follows. The applicant, and his co-offenders, came to the attention of police in November 1997, originally in respect of offences of producing, possession and supply of the dangerous drug cannabis. These offences constituted counts 1 to 3 inclusive of the offences on which the applicant was sentenced by Demack J on 26 October 1998.
In the course of that investigation a large amount of stolen property was found in the possession of the applicant and his two co-accused Bailey and Shaw. The property included motor vehicles, a boat and a trailer. In some cases compliance plates and chassis numbers on the motor vehicles had been changed. The boat and trailer had been repainted to disguise their identity. One stolen Toyota utility was on-sold to a car yard for $10,000. The applicant claimed to have paid $6,000 for it. He assisted others in breaking and entering premises in Townsville and stealing property. He stored property stolen by others intending to sell it. The total value of the property involved in the offences to which the applicant pleaded was over $100,000.
Whilst on bail in respect of the first lot of drug offences and these property offences the applicant committed further drug offences including the offence of trafficking, for which he was sentenced by Demack J to six years' imprisonment.
Bearing in mind the professional nature of the property offences, the applicant's substantial criminal history and the amount of property involved, the learned sentencing Judge stated that, "The objective circumstances of the offences warrant a sentence of the order of five years' imprisonment."
Because of the applicant's co-operation with the authorities, his very early plea of guilty, his statement of remorse made at sentence and because he was already serving a sentence of six years' imprisonment the learned sentencing Judge imposed an effective cumulative sentence of two and a half years' imprisonment.
The applicant had not demonstrated at the time of sentence any real prospects of rehabilitation having committed drug-related offences including the offence of trafficking whilst on bail.
In all the circumstances of this case it was proper to impose a cumulative sentence for these serious property offences. That cumulative sentence was moderated to stop it from being a crushing one and to reflect the applicant's co-operation, early plea and remorse.
It cannot be said the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing Judge below was outside the range of a sound exercise of discretion.
THE PRESIDENT: The order is the application is refused.
R
Sheen [1999] QCA 129
Application refused