Bloomfield v The Queen
[2001] WASCA 253
•22 AUGUST 2001
BLOOMFIELD -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 253
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2001] WASCA 253 | |
| COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL | 22/08/2001 | ||
| Case No: | CCA:252/2000 | 2 AUGUST 2001 | |
| Coram: | MALCOLM CJ STEYTLER J BURCHETT AUJ | 2/08/01 | |
| 6 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | SHANE JOHN BLOOMFIELD THE QUEEN |
Catchwords: | Criminal law and procedure Sentencing Two counts of attempted armed robbery and three counts of armed robbery Whether sentence excessive Whether sufficient discount given for early plea of guilty and co-operation with police Effect of inaccuracies in prior criminal record Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518 Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87 Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665 Robinson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980587; 9 October 1998 Stretton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950282; 1 June 1995 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL CITATION : BLOOMFIELD -v- THE QUEEN [2001] WASCA 253 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ
- STEYTLER J
BURCHETT AUJ
- Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent
Catchwords:
Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Two counts of attempted armed robbery and three counts of armed robbery - Whether sentence excessive - Whether sufficient discount given for early plea of guilty and co-operation with police - Effect of inaccuracies in prior criminal record - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Nil
(Page 2)
Result:
Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Applicant : Ms K J Farley
Respondent : Mr D Dempster
Solicitors:
Applicant : Unrepresented Criminal Appellants' Scheme
Respondent : State Director of Public Prosecutions
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
Case(s) also cited:
Little v The Queen [2001] WASCA 87
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Robinson v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980587; 9 October 1998
Stretton v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 950282; 1 June 1995
(Page 3)
1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: On 6 November 2000 the applicant was convicted, on his plea of guilty, on two counts of attempted armed robbery and three of armed robbery. He was sentenced to a total period of 10 years' imprisonment with eligibility for parole. He has applied for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon him. At the conclusion of the hearing the applicant's application was unanimously dismissed, with reasons to be provided later. These are those reasons.
2 The first count on which the applicant was convicted was one of armed robbery. At about midnight on 7 March 2000 he robbed the Mega Video Store in Kalgoorlie. He entered the store wearing a stocking over his head and armed with a sawn-off firearm. He pointed the firearm at the lone employee and demanded money. She handed him $500 in cash from the cash register. He apologised to her and then left.
3 Counts 2 and 3 were both attempted armed robberies. Both took place in the early hours of 26 July 2000. At about 4.10 am on that day the applicant attempted to rob a service station in Kalgoorlie. He wore a grey and black balaclava and gloves and was again armed with a sawn-off firearm. He pointed the firearm at the lone employee and demanded money. However the employee stalled the applicant, saying that he could not get the cash register open because of a problem with the computer. The applicant became agitated. He threatened, on several occasions, to shoot the employee, saying that he had two bullets. Curiously enough, he also apologised to the employee for his conduct. Notwithstanding the applicant's threats, the employee continued to stall him. After several minutes he left.
4 The applicant then went to a house in Killarney Street, Kalgoorlie. He arrived there at about 5.30 am and knocked on the front door. The householder began to open the door. As the door opened, the applicant pushed the barrel of his sawn-off firearm through the opening and tried to force his way into the house. However the door was fitted with a security chain and the householder was able to close it again. The applicant threatened to shoot the householder through the door. When this threat failed to have any effect, he struck the door and left.
5 The applicant then went to the River Rooster Service Station in Boulder. There he committed the offence the subject of count 4 on the indictment. He entered the store of the service station in the same clothing that he had earlier been wearing. He was still armed with the sawn-off firearm. He pointed the firearm at the staff member in the store. The barrel of the firearm was only a metre away from her. He demanded
(Page 4)
- money. He then moved around the counter and opened the cash register from which he stole $254. He also took the tray of the cash register.
6 The armed robbery, the subject of count 5, took place some three weeks later, on 16 August 2000. At about 9.20 pm that evening the applicant went to the "drive through" bottle shop of the Albion Hotel in Boulder. He was, once again, wearing a black balaclava and armed with a sawn-off firearm. He approached three staff members near the counter of the bottle shop, pointed his firearm at them and demanded money. They placed money from two cash registers on the counter. He grabbed the money, a sum of $982 in all, and left.
7 The sentencing Judge sentenced the applicant to a period of 6 years' imprisonment on each of the counts of armed robbery (counts 1, 4 and 5). He also sentenced him to 4 years' imprisonment on count 2 (the first attempted armed robbery) and to 5 years' imprisonment on count 3 (the second attempted armed robbery). The sentence on count 2 was made cumulative on that imposed in respect of count 1. All other terms were ordered to be served concurrently. The applicant was declared to be eligible for parole.
8 There are only two proposed grounds of appeal. The first is that the sentence of imprisonment was excessive, in that the trial Judge erred in not making any, or any adequate, discount for the applicant's early plea of guilty and his co-operation with the police. The second is that the sentencing Judge erred in placing too much emphasis on the applicant's criminal record which, the applicant said, was inaccurate.
9 As to the first of those proposed grounds, the applicant had pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. He had also co-operated with the police, albeit only after being confronted with a balaclava and stocking found by them at his home and with a photograph of him obtained from one of the service stations robbed by him. The sentencing Judge did not, in the course of his sentencing remarks, refer to either the plea of guilty or the fact of co-operation. Moreover, this was so in circumstances in which, by s 58(2) of the Sentencing Act 1995, a plea of guilty is a mitigating factor and, by s 8(4) thereof, if, because of a mitigating factor, a court reduces the sentence it would otherwise have imposed on an offender, the court must state that fact in open court.
10 However, even if it be assumed that the sentencing Judge did not take these factors into account in sentencing the applicant (rather than that he merely omitted to mention them) we are not at all persuaded that the
(Page 5)
- sentences imposed by him should be altered. It is well recognised, in this Court, that the range of sentences commonly imposed for a single offence of armed robbery, depending upon the circumstances, is one of between 6 and 9 years' imprisonment (see Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518 at 521, per Malcolm CJ). These offences were particularly serious. They involved an element of planning in the course of which, as we have said, the applicant armed himself with a sawn-off rifle and disguised his appearance. Four of the applicant's five victims were in a vulnerable position while endeavouring to provide a service to the community. The fifth victim was threatened in his own home. We have mentioned that, in the course of two of the offences, the applicant made threats to shoot. In every case the firearm was pointed at the intended victims. In those circumstances, even taking into account the applicant's plea of guilty and co-operation with the police, together with other matters in mitigation (and counsel for the applicant relied, in this respect, on the applicant's troubled history and the fact that, for the first time, he appeared to have formed a stable relationship which might prove to have an ameliorating effect on his behaviour), the applicant could not, in our opinion, properly have been given sentences of less than 6 years' imprisonment in respect of each of the armed robberies or less than 4 and 5 years' imprisonment respectively in respect of the attempted armed robberies, if each of those offences is looked at on its own. Nor, in our opinion, should an aggregate sentence of less than 10 years' imprisonment have been imposed, even taking into account all of the factors in mitigation, given the seriousness of these offences. It follows that, even if the sentencing Judge erred in the respects contended for, the applicant cannot make good his contention that the total sentence of imprisonment imposed upon him was excessive.
11 As to ground 2 of the proposed grounds of appeal, it is true that the applicant's criminal record mistakenly repeated a number of his prior convictions. However, there is nothing to suggest that the sentencing Judge did not notice this. The repetition is readily apparent even from a cursory examination of the record.
12 In any event, the applicant's record is lengthy even without the repetition. It is consequently not surprising that his Honour looked at it, as he said, "anxiously", although his comments in this respect (and, indeed, his other comments touching upon the applicant's criminal record) appear to have been primarily directed at the issue of eligibility for parole. There are, as the sentencing Judge mentioned, some serious convictions in the applicant's record. His Honour remarked, correctly, that the most serious convictions were those which took place in 1995 (encompassing a conviction for causing damage to property by means of an explosion), in
(Page 6)
- respect of which an aggregate term of imprisonment of 6 years and 3 months had been imposed. His Honour also remarked, quite rightly, that many of the offences were alcohol related and that many others were concerned with cannabis or the use of cannabis. He did not otherwise comment on the applicant's record.
13 We are accordingly not persuaded that his Honour made any error in this respect and it consequently seems to us that the proposed ground 2 cannot be made out.
14 It follows, in our opinion, that the application for leave to appeal has no substance. It was for these reasons that we agreed to dismiss it.
0
3
1