R v Andrews - [1997] QCA 304

COURT OF APPEAL

[1997] QCA 304

McPHERSON JA
SHEPHERDSON J

WHITE J

CA No 209 of 1997
THE QUEEN
v.

DARREN JASON ANDREWS

Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 07/08/97
070897 T21/HMH8 M/T COA175/97
McPHERSON JA: The applicant for leave to appeal against
sentence was convicted after a trial in the Supreme Court of the
offence of attempting to strike with a projectile with intent to
do grievous bodily harm. He also pleaded guilty to an offence
on the same indictment of extortion. The sentences imposed for
these offences were 12 years in each case, to be served
concurrently. The effective sentence was therefore one of that
duration.

The story began when one of the complainants, a man named Barrett, discovered canine excrement in a box addressed to him at his home. He reported the matter to the police. He and his family were then subjected to a series of telephone calls from an unidentified caller, who adopted a threatening tone or language towards them. A little while later a fire was set, using what appears to have been petrol as an inflammatory element, in the yard of the property of a friend of his, a Mr Baldwin, who is the second complainant, who lived near Barrett. Baldwin then also received harassing telephone calls from an unknown caller.

The responsibility for these events or, at any rate, what is said to have been the main responsibility for them, rested with a man named Price, to whom the applicant admitted he was an accomplice in the crime of extortion. An arrangement was made by Price and the applicant to ensure that Barrett and Baldwin, or one of them, dropped off a bag supposedly containing $30,000 at a place on the Bruce Highway. In fact, the police, having been alerted to what was going on and having engaged in trying to solve the problem, were concealed at the place where the bag 070897 T21/HMH8 M/T COA175/97

was dropped off. In due course Price emerged and, one may
assume, prepared to take what he believed to be the money.

The presence of the police was discovered and they were fired on by Price. The police fired back and, in what seems to have been a shooting engagement, Price was wounded to such an extent that in the end he was unfit to stand trial. The police found that Price, or Price and the applicant, had a .303 rifle and a shotgun, and that the applicant himself had a sawn-off .22 rifle. The pair of them also had an explosive device with a destructive potential.

There was, it seems, evidence of involvement of a third person in the enterprise; but he could not be identified and the applicant has not assisted in identifying him if, in fact, he exists. There were indications that the two conspirators, Price and the applicant, had fortified themselves for the encounter in which the shooting took place by using drugs of some kind.

The applicant is 28 years of age. He has…

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 R v Andrews

Details

AGLC: R v Andrews [1997] QCA 304
Case: [1997] QCA 304
Decision Date: 7/08/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v. Darren Jason Andrews, the applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence for two offences. The first offence was an attempt to strike with a projectile with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and the second offence was extortion. The Supreme Court had sentenced the applicant to 12 years in prison for each offence, to be served concurrently. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the sentence was appropriate and whether the applicant's application for leave to appeal should be granted.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court were excessive and whether the applicant had a valid basis for appealing the sentence. The Court considered the severity of the offences, the applicant's criminal history, and the sentencing principles applicable to the case. The Court also took into account the mitigating factors presented by the applicant's counsel.

The Court of Appeal found that the sentences imposed by the Supreme Court were within the proper range for the offences committed. The Court considered the seriousness of the offences, which involved the use of violence and intimidation to extort money from innocent victims. The Court also noted that the applicant had a history of drug-related offences but no prior convictions for violent crimes. The Court concluded that the sentences imposed were appropriate and did not warrant intervention by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal against his sentence. The judges agreed with the order proposed by the presiding judge and provided their reasons for dismissing the application. The order was that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

Orders