Forrest v The Queen
[2002] TASSC 11
•25 March 2002
[2002] TASSC 11
CITATION: Forrest v R [2002] TASSC 11
PARTIES: FORREST, Shaun Geoffrey
v
R
TITLE OF COURT: COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL (TAS)
JURISDICTION: APPELLATE
FILE NO/S: CCA 81/2001
DELIVERED ON: 25 March 2002
DELIVERED AT: Hobart
HEARING DATES: 12 March 2002
JUDGMENT OF: Underwood, Crawford and Evans JJ
CATCHWORDS:
Criminal law - Jurisdiction practice and procedure - Judgment and punishment - Sentence - Factors to be taken into account - Miscellaneous matters - Other convictions of offender - substantial sentence not excessive having regard to other convictions and circumstances of commission of crime.
Aust Dig Criminal Law [839]
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant: B J Nibbs
Respondent: K Brown
Solicitors:
Appellant: Wallace Wilkinson and Webster
Respondent: Director of Public Prosecutions
Judgment Number: [2002] TASSC 11
Number of Paragraphs: 15
Serial No 11/2001
File No CCA 81/2001
SHAUN GEOFFREY FORREST v THE QUEEN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
UNDERWOOD J
CRAWFORD J
EVANS J
25 March 2002
Order of the Court
Appeal dismissed.
Serial No 11/2002
File No CCA 81/2001
SHAUN GEOFFREY FORREST v THE QUEEN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
UNDERWOOD J
25 March 2002
I agree with the reasons for judgment of Crawford and Evans JJ.
File No CCA 81/2001
SHAUN GEOFFREY FORREST v THE QUEEN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
CRAWFORD J
25 March 2002
I respectfully agree with the reasons for judgment of Evans J and his Honour's conclusion that the appeal should be dismissed. Generally speaking, a crime such as this committed by a 22 year old offender who volunteers his guilt at a time when the police do not suspect it, would not deserve a sentence of 15 months' imprisonment, provided that the offender's record was not a bad one. However, the appellant's record for crimes of dishonesty is correctly categorised as bad and I have concluded that Evans J is correct in his opinion that a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment, reduced to 15 months' imprisonment for volunteering guilt, would have been appropriate.
File No CCA 81/2001
SHAUN GEOFFREY FORREST v THE QUEEN
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
EVANS J
25 March 2002
The appellant, having pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery, was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence. The sole ground advanced in support of his application is that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
Whilst attending a shopping centre, the appellant observed his eventual victim, a female shopper, withdraw money from an automatic teller. The appellant kept his victim under observation until she approached her parked motor vehicle. As she entered the vehicle, the appellant advanced on her and grabbed her handbag. She resisted but the appellant persisted and after tugging at her handbag two or three times, he gained possession of it and fled. His victim did not suffer any physical injuries. She has a robust personality and does not consider that the incident had a significant impact on her apart from making her more nervous and more vigilant.
The handbag contained $55 in cash in two wallets belonging to the victim and her husband, which also contained their credit cards, passports, birth certificates, driver's licences and keys to their house and car. The stolen cash has not been recovered. The bulk of the other items were recovered a little over three months after the commission of the offence when the appellant showed the police where he had left them. In the absence of the items, the victim and her husband were inconvenienced by being unable to procure cash for several days and were put to the trouble of replacing most of the stolen items.
The appellant was 22 years of age when the offence was committed. His record of prior convictions includes many convictions for crimes of dishonesty. On 25 May 1999, he was sentenced to two years three months' imprisonment on seven charges of aggravated burglary, six charges of stealing and one charge of assault. A period of nine months of that sentence was suspended on condition that he be of good behaviour for two years subsequent to his release from prison. He was made the subject of a probation order for the same period. Within eight months of the appellant's release from prison, he committed the offence to which this appeal relates. At that time the appellant was subject to the suspended sentence of imprisonment and the probation order just referred to.
The learned sentencing judge was informed that the explanation for the appellant's offence, and his many prior convictions, was his consumption of an amphetamine commonly known as speed. His Honour was also informed that the appellant had completely stopped that consumption. A pre-sentence report provided to the learned sentencing judge made reference to the appellant repeating previous statements about improving his situation, but noted that the appellant was not willing to make the necessary changes to address his risk factors which included homelessness and mixing with associates and friends who used marihuana and amphetamines.
The appellant was sentenced to fifteen months' imprisonment.
In support of his contention that the sentence is manifestly excessive, counsel for the appellant submits that it exceeds the range of sentences for robberies which counsel says can be equated with a bag snatching offence, and it does not reflect the appellant's entitlement to a reduction in his sentence for volunteering his guilt to the police at a time when it was not suspected that he was the offender.
In her text, Sentencing in Tasmania, the Federation Press Pty Ltd, 1990, Professor Warner, at 12.609, says with respect to sentences imposed from 1978 to 1989:
"Global sentences of imprisonment for cases of unarmed robbery ranged from 2 months to 4 years with sentences of 18 months being the middle range. … Sentences in the lower range were typically street muggings (robbery with violence and assault) committed by young offenders."
I have examined the sentencing database kept by the Court since 1989 for sentences imposed for robberies colloquially described as bag snatching. The bulk of the sentences I identified involved youthful offenders aged between 14 and 19 years as listed below:
NAME AGE SENTENCE KA 17 18 months' imprisonment wholly suspended DA 19 5 months' imprisonment SC 19 8 months' imprisonment with 7 months suspended BF 17 100 hours community service DM 15 Committed to an institution for 6 months KP 17 6 months' imprisonment wholly suspended PS 17 12 months' imprisonment with 9 months suspended JS 17 6 months' imprisonment wholly suspended JW 19 6 months' imprisonment SW
14
Supervision order under the Child Welfare Act
These sentences demonstrate that in the case of an offender who can no longer lay claim to youth as a mitigating factor, a sentence of two years' imprisonment for bag snatching would not be out of order. Speaking generally, it seems that bag snatching is widespread. Offenders, driven by their craving for illicit drugs, are increasingly funding their needs by preying on victims, often elderly women, to snatch a victim's bag. It is not uncommon for victims to suffer physical or psychological injury. It is most important that those who may be minded to commit this type of offence be well aware that their conduct is likely to attract a significant penalty.
The appellant, a 22 year old repeat offender, was not entitled to any reduction in his penalty by reason of his age or his reform prospects. Considerations which required the imposition of a sentence at the upper end of the range applicable to his offence were, his substantial record of prior convictions, his failure to respond to previous sentences (at the time of the offence he was subject to a suspended sentence of imprisonment and a probation order), and the premeditated way in which he carried out the offence. His conduct could not be categorised as impetuous.
As to mitigation, it was most pertinent that the appellant volunteered his guilt to the police when they were interviewing him in relation to other offences at a time when the police had no knowledge of his involvement in the offence. In Sullivan v R 9/1975 (Court of Criminal Appeal), Chambers J, with whom Nettlefold J agreed, described a voluntary confession of guilt as a strong mitigatory factor. Plainly this is a matter which warrants a meaningful reduction in the penalty an offender would otherwise incur. Had it not been for this mitigating matter, a sentence of 21 months' imprisonment would have been within the appropriate range. Paying due regard to this mitigating matter, I am unpersuaded that a penalty of 15 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive.
I would dismiss the application for leave to appeal.
0
0
0