Regina v Scott

Regina v Scott - [2005] NSWCCA 51 - NSWCCA 2005 case summary — Zoe

[17]

Factual background 5 Because of the way in which the appeal was argued, it is necessary to set out briefly the factual circumstances surrounding each offence. 6 On Saturday 1 March 2003 the applicant attended the Asquith and Johnson Car Dealership. She there test drove a Peugeot 406 coupe. In order to do so she carefully dressed herself in a business suit and produced a driver's licence in a false name, Samantha Maree Jones. The false licence bore the applicant's photograph. The applicant persuaded the salesman to allow her to take the Peugeot for a test drive. She did not return it. The value of the Peugeot was approximately $60,000. 7 On 23 March 2003 the applicant attended a Lexus car dealership in Church Street, Parramatta. Dressed in a similar fashion and using the same false name and licence, she test-drove a Lexus IS300 sedan. She did not return it. The vehicle was valued at $66,000. 8 On 3 May 2003 the applicant attended New Rowley Motors at 393 Pacific Highway, Artarmon and test-drove a Jaguar Sovereign saloon. Again she used a false name and a false licence. The vehicle was not returned. The Jaguar was valued at approximately $60,000. 9 On 11 May 2003 the applicant attended the Audi Centre Car Dealership at 49-53 Church Street, Parramatta and test-drove an Audi All Road station wagon. As with all of the other offences, the applicant wore a business suit, provided a false story as to why she intended to buy the car, used a false name and licence, test drove the Audi and did not return it. The value of the Audi was approximately $88,900. 10 The Peugeot and Audi were made available to the applicant's de facto husband, Jason Palinko, who exchanged parts of the stolen vehicles with damaged vehicles of similar make so as to "rebirth" an apparently undamaged vehicle. It was while the applicant was a passenger in the "rebirthed" Peugeot that she was arrested for the motor vehicle thefts on 18 July 2003. The two stolen vehicles, which were used in the "rebirthing" procedure, were destroyed. The parts, which were not used in the "rebirthing" activity, were sold and otherwise disposed of. The applicant entered a plea of guilty to the four offences on 18 December 2003, which was accepted as the earliest point in time that she could reasonably do so. 11 The applicant gave evidence in the sentencing procedures. The effect of that evidence was that she had stolen the Jaguar and Lexus motor vehicles because she had always wanted to drive such expensive vehicles but knew she could not afford to do so. Having driven each vehicle for some hours she then panicked and abandoned it with its keys and was unable to advise the court further as to what happened to each vehicle. His Honour did not accept that evidence. His Honour was not told what had happened to those vehicles.

[18]

Remarks on sentence 12 His Honour analysed in considerable detail the statements which had been obtained from the various salesmen, who had been duped by the applicant, in relation to the theft of each vehicle. These statements formed part of the agreed facts which were before his Honour. Having done so his Honour concluded: "I have reached the conclusion from a consideration of the evidence of the offender, a comparison of the statements, that in relation to the manner in which these offences were carried out, they showed concentration, memory, judgment and logical and rational thought on the part of the offender, together with a studied patience and cunning to persuade the car salesmen to part with their vehicles despite in some of the cases their clear directions not to permit a person to take the cars in the circumstances, without going with the person taking them." (ROS 5) 13 His Honour went on to say: "One of the reasons that I have outlined in the detail which I have, the statements made by the car salesmen is to indicate that by the method of speaking to the car salesmen, her mode of dress and appearance, and the careful way in which she waited for the opportunity to be able to take the vehicle on her own were all matters which I have taken into account in determining the extent of the criminality of this case." (ROS 14) 14 It had been submitted on behalf of the applicant that at the time when the offences took place she was suffering from post natal depression (her child having been born approximately ten months before) and that in some fashion she was not fully responsible for her actions. His Honour rejected that submission: "These facts are in my opinion, inconsistent with any claim to be depressed or upset or concerned when, in the situations that I have now outlined, the offences were committed. Indeed as I have said already, I am satisfied this was a deliberate course of conduct on her part. I reject the explanation that she has given about the way in which she disposed of the second and third vehicles. In saying that, there is material which indicates that not only was she unlikely to have panicked after she had undertaken the course of deception that I have outlined but that it is unlikely that she would have just left the vehicles as she said that she did and abandon them to their fate." (ROS 14-15) 15 His Honour noted that the applicant had no previous convictions. In relation to her plea of guilty he considered that there was real utilitarian value in it and allowed in her favour a twenty five percent discount on sentence. His Honour also had regard to the following specific subjective features.

[23]

(v) At the time of the offences the applicant was in financial difficulty in that Mr Palinko was not paying regular child maintenance. She had become depressed, but had not sought any counselling or psychiatric assistance. 16 His Honour found that little weight should be given to the applicant's expressions of remorse and contrition, except insofar as they were raised by the early plea of guilty. He made that finding on the basis of the way in which the offences had been committed and the applicant's explanation as to why she stole the vehicles, the subject of counts 2 and 3. 17 His Honour did have specific regard to the potential hardship to which the applicant's child would be exposed if the applicant were sentenced to a fulltime period of imprisonment. His Honour noted, however, that there were provisions for very young children to be allowed to stay with their mothers in prison in certain circumstances. While taking this matter into account, his Honour did not find that it constituted exceptional circumstances. 18 His Honour made reference to s21A of the Crimes Sentencing Procedure Act and had regard to aggravating and mitigating factors referred to therein. Specifically his Honour noted that the applicant had no criminal record and had not previously been subject to a term of imprisonment. 19 His Honour did find special circumstances which favoured the applicant. He identified those special circumstances as being the youth of the applicant, the need for rehabilitation to be undertaken after her release, the fact that this was her first time in custody and that she was a person of previous good character with no other convictions. His Honour also noted that the value of the vehicles stolen was well in excess of $200,000. 20 In fixing the sentences his Honour had specific regard to the objective seriousness of each offence (R v Pearce (1998) 194 CLR 610) but also to the principle of totality in relation to all of the sentences awarded by him (R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34). It was as a result of that analysis that his Honour awarded the sentences referred to.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Catchwords

Source

Catchwords

Judgment (29 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (2)

Cited By (2)