Denniss v The Queen

[2019] ACTCA 26

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Denniss v The Queen

Citation:

[2019] ACTCA 26

Hearing Date:

6 August 2019

DecisionDate:

4 October 2019

Before:

Burns, Loukas-Karlsson and Wigney JJ

Decision:

Appeal dismissed and sentences confirmed. See [27]

Catchwords:

APPEAL – CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – one charge of aggravated robbery – one charge of failing to return to custody – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive

Cases Cited:

Dalton v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 48

Heard v The Queen [2015] ACTCA 6
Henry v The Queen [2019] ACTCA 5
Kumova v The Queen [2012] VSCA 212; 37 VR 53
R v Denniss [2018] ACTSC 239
R v Detenamo [2007] VSCA 160

Taylor v R [2014] ACTCA 9

Parties:

Tian-Jarrah Denniss (Appellant)

The Queen (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Self-represented (Appellant)

T Hickey (Respondent)

Solicitors

Self-represented (Appellant)

ACT Director of Public Prosecutions (Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 53 of 2018

Decision under appeal: 

Court/Tribunal:             ACT Supreme Court

Before:  Mossop J

Date of Decision:         20 August 2018

Case Title:  R v Denniss

Citation: [2018] ACTSC 239

THE COURT:

1. This was an appeal from a sentence imposed by Justice Mossop on 20 August 2018. The sentence imposed was as follows:

(a)     In relation to one charge of aggravated robbery (CC2018/6974), the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of three years, from 3 August 2018 until 2 August 2021.

(b)     In relation to one charge of failing to return to custody (CC2018/6973), the appellant was sentenced to imprisonment for a period of nine months, from 3 March 2021 until 2 December 2021.

(c)     These periods of imprisonment were to be concurrent from 3 March 2021 until 2 August 2021.

(d)     The non-parole period was to commence 3 August 2018 and end 2 December 2020.

(e)     The aggregate head sentence came to three years and four months’ imprisonment.

1. The appellant has appealed from the sentence on the basis that the head sentence and the non-parole period were manifestly excessive.

1. It is necessary to provide some background to the charges for which the appellant was originally sentenced. In May 2018, the appellant was remanded in custody on other charges. He was granted day bail on 24 May 2018, to give him the opportunity to make accommodation arrangements in the event that he gained a place at a rehabilitation program. He was due to return to the Alexander Maconochie Centre by 5 pm that day, which he did not do. This formed the basis of the charge of failing to return to custody.

1. On the night of 24 May 2018, after failing to return to custody, the appellant robbed a Celebrations Liquor store with the aid of a broken glass bottle which he had broken himself. He stole cigarettes, between $1,000 and $2,000 in cash, and alcohol. This formed the basis for the charge of aggravated robbery.

1. While the appellant bent down to pick up his bag, an employee of the store locked the appellant inside the store.…