R v Apps - [2008] QCA 326

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Apps [2008] QCA 326

PARTIES:

R
v
APPS, Bruce William
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 98 of 2008
DC No 3374 of 2007

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2008

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 September 2008

JUDGES:

Mackenzie AJA, Cullinane and Jones JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty of one count of armed robbery – where the offence involved the armed robbery of a pharmacy for prescription drugs – where the applicant was addicted to the prescription drugs obtained – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after two years – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances

R v Hammond [1997] 2 Qd R 195; [1996] QCA 508, considered
R v Main[1999] QCA 327, considered
R v Mather[1999] QCA 226, considered
R v Maxfield [2002] 1 Qd R 417; [2000] QCA 320, considered
R v Moodie [1999] QCA 125, considered
R v Moss[1999] QCA 426, considered

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
R Pointing for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

MACKENZIE AJA: The applicant pleaded guilty to an offence of armed robbery committed on 21 April 2007. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment with a parole eligibility date fixed at 20 April 2009. It was effectively a parole eligibility recommendation after serving two years, since he had spent 332 days in custody from arrest, which he was entitled to have taken into account as time already served. He was also convicted on his pleas of guilty of a variety of summary offences, all but one of which were committed between 12 March 2007 and 27 July 2007. No complaint is made about the sentences for them.

The facts of the matter are that the applicant entered a pharmacy at about 5.25 pm on a Saturday evening. He was wearing a blue canvas bag, with eye holes cut out, over his head. The complainant was working in the pharmacy with two other staff members. When he saw the applicant walk in, he left the dispensary and walked towards him. He pressed the panic button on the way. The applicant lifted his jumper and the complainant observed something brown underneath it. He thought that the applicant had a weapon by the way he held the object.

The applicant who was behaving in an agitated and nervous manner asked the complainant where the dangerous drug safe was. He…

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 Apps

Details

AGLC: R v Apps [2008] QCA 326
Case: [2008] QCA 326
Decision Date: 17 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, in this case, was convicted of armed robbery following a guilty plea and was sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after two years. The crime involved the armed robbery of a pharmacy with the purpose of obtaining prescription drugs to which the appellant was addicted. The appellant applied to the court to reduce the sentence on the basis that it was manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

In considering the matter, the court observed that the crime was of a serious nature and involved the use of a firearm. The court further found that the appellant had a history of criminal offending, including previous convictions for drug-related offences. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and therefore the application to reduce the sentence was refused. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the crime.

The court held that the appellant's addiction to prescription drugs was a mitigating factor, but it did not outweigh the seriousness of the crime. The court further found that the appellant's criminal history was a relevant consideration in determining the appropriate sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and therefore the application to reduce the sentence was refused.

In summary, the court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances, and the application to reduce the sentence was refused. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and reflected the seriousness of the crime. The court held that the appellant's addiction to prescription drugs and criminal history were relevant considerations in determining the appropriate sentence, but they did not outweigh the seriousness of the crime.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	R v Apps [2008] QCA 326
PARTIES:	R v APPS, Bruce William (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 98 of 2008 DC No 3374 of 2007
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	17 October 2008
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	19 September 2008
JUDGES:	Mackenzie AJA, Cullinane and Jones JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATIONS TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – where the applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty of one count of armed robbery – where the offence involved the armed robbery of a pharmacy for prescription drugs – where the applicant was addicted to the prescription drugs obtained – where the applicant was sentenced to five years imprisonment with parole eligibility after two years – whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in all of the circumstances R v Hammond [1997] 2 Qd R 195; [1996] QCA 508, considered R v Main[1999] QCA 327, considered R v Mather[1999] QCA 226, considered R v Maxfield [2002] 1 Qd R 417; [2000] QCA 320, considered R v Moodie [1999] QCA 125, considered R v Moss[1999] QCA 426, considered
COUNSEL:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf R Pointing for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	The applicant appeared on his own behalf Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent