Mannix v The Queen - [2002] WASCA 244

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

TITLE OF COURT : COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

CITATION: MANNIX -v- THE QUEEN [2002] WASCA 244

CORAM: MALCOLM CJ
WALLWORK J
STEYTLER J

HEARD: 22 JULY 2002

DELIVERED : 4 SEPTEMBER 2002

FILE NO/S: CCA 184 of 2001

BETWEEN: DAVID PATRICK MANNIX
Applicant
AND
THE QUEEN
Respondent

Catchwords:

Criminal law and procedure - Sentencing - Armed robbery - Staff of bottleshop threatened by offender armed with a replica pistol at night - Offender made off with cash but was apprehended by staff - Sentence of imprisonment for 5 years with eligibility for parole not manifestly excessive

Legislation:

Criminal Code (WA), s 293

Result:

Application for leave to appeal refused

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant: Ms V Amidzic
Respondent: Mr R E Cock QC

Solicitors:

Applicant: Amidzic & Co
Respondent: State Director of Public Prosecutions

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Castagna v The Queen [2001] WASCA 142
Ginn v The Queen[2000] WASCA 95
Lowndes v The Queen (1999) 195 CLR 665
Miles v The Queen (1997) 17 WAR 518
R v Shaharuddin [1999] WASCA 229
Taylor v The Queen, unreported; CCA SCt of WA; Library No 980152; 6 April 1998

Case(s) also cited:

Nil

MALCOLM CJ: This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence. On 6 November 2001 the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty to one count of armed robbery whilst pretending to be armed. On 30 November 2001 he was sentenced by Miller J to imprisonment for 5 years with eligibility for parole. The maximum penalty for armed robbery is imprisonment for life. The grounds upon which the application is made are that:
"1.The learned sentencing Judge failed to have sufficient regard to the mitigating circumstances operating upon the applicant at the time of the offence and the circumstances of mitigation generally.
2.The learned sentencing Judge sentenced the applicant on the basis of misapprehension as to the facts relied upon by way of mitigation."
During the course of the hearing the Director of Public Prosecutions referred to statements made by the complainant Mr Matheson and two other employees at the Tavern, namely Messrs Corica and Bagios. Unfortunately, these had not been included in the papers before the Court on the hearing of the application. There was also a victim impact statement by Mr Matheson. At the conclusion of the hearing the Court directed that the Director file at the Court and serve on the applicant's solicitors copies of the relevant statements and any further submissions in relation to them, and granted leave to counsel for the applicant to file further submissions within two days of the service.
At about 9.20pm on 4 July 2001 the applicant drove his motor vehicle to the Kardinya Tavern Bottleshop in South Street, Kardinya intending to commit an armed robbery. He disguised himself with a black balaclava, gloves and dark clothing. He was armed with a black replica pistol. On arrival at the bottleshop he approached staff pointing the replica pistol at…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Mannix v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Mannix v The Queen [2002] WASCA 244
Case: [2002] WASCA 244
Decision Date: 4 SEPTEMBER 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Mannix v The Queen involved the appellant, Mannix, who was convicted of armed robbery. The incident occurred when Mannix threatened staff at a bottleshop with a replica pistol during the night and subsequently made off with cash before being apprehended by the staff. The case was brought to the High Court for review of the sentence imposed by the lower court.

The central legal issues in this case were whether the sentence of imprisonment for five years with eligibility for parole was manifestly excessive, and if the sentencing process was fair and just. The Court was required to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing in relation to armed robbery.

The Court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. In reaching this conclusion, the Court examined the severity of the crime, which involved threatening staff with a replica pistol and making off with cash, highlighting the potential for serious harm. The Court also took into account the appellant's criminal history and the need for general deterrence. It was determined that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and was proportionate to the circumstances. The Court emphasised that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate for such a serious crime.

The final orders of the Court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed, affirming the sentence of imprisonment for five years with eligibility for parole. The Court held that the sentence was fair and just, taking into account all relevant factors and adhering to the principles of sentencing in cases of armed robbery.

Orders