Bindon v Meyer [1995] QCA 540

1 COURT OF APPEAL [1995] QCA 540 PINCUS JA LEE J MACKENZIE J CA No 288 of 1995 M T BINDON v. STEVEN CLIVE MEYERApplicant BRISBANE ..DATE 05/10/95 JUDGMENT -- 1 of 3 -- 051095 D.1 T17/DL M/T COA95/295 2 JUDGMENT PINCUS JA: The applicant, Steven Clive Meyer, has applied for leave to appeal against sentence. He was sentenced in the Magistrates Court at Holland Park in last June on charges of numerous offences which I will mention. The term imposed was 12 months to be suspended for a period of two years after three months and restitution was ordered. The applicant Mr Meyer has not appeared today. His name has been called outside the Court and there has been no response to that. We have had the advantage of some assistance from Mrs Clare for the respondent. The offences in question were committed in 1986 and they were 41 offences of false pretences and one of receiving. What happened was that in 1986 a Mastercard was stolen from a person's home. The applicant got hold of the card knowing it had been stolen and he used it to obtain various sorts of goods. He gained from it a sum of about $1,600, making 41 purchases; hence there were the 41 charges of false pretences. In 1995 he was in contact with the police and when they realised who he was they charged him with these old offences. The applicant's criminal record is not unimpressive. He has convictions which are fairly numerous both before and after those with which we are presently concerned. Terms of imprisonment have been imposed on five separate occasions for periods up to 16 months. There is a considerable number of offences of dishonesty, drug offences and driving offences. -- 2 of 3 -- 051095 D.1 T17/DL M/T COA95/295 3 JUDGMENT What the Magistrate did was to impose, as I mentioned, 12 months imprisonment, suspended after three months in respect of the receiving charge and three months imprisonment concurrent on the other charges together with an order for restitution. Mrs Clare has helpfully drawn our attention to the problem whether or not the applicant was too harshly treated because there was a combination of both restitution and imprisonment. The material does not seem to me to support that suggestion. The penalty imposed was not very heavy. It was no doubt substantial in the sense that it involved a gaol term, but the applicant had such a bad record that a gaol term was almost inevitable. Mrs Clare has also drawn our attention to the fact that in the past the applicant has had difficulties with alcohol and drugs; he was at one stage a heroin addict. These matters were no doubt taken into account by the Magistrate. The view which I take is that the Magistrate has imposed a penalty which is within the range of a proper exercise of discretion and I would be inclined to refuse the application. LEE J: I agree. MACKENZIE J: I agree. PINCUS JA: This application is refused. ----- -- 3 of 3 --