R v Banks - [1998] QCA 218

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1998] QCA 218
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 117 of 1998

Brisbane

[R. v. Banks]

THE QUEEN

STEVEN ANTHONY BANKS

(Applicant) Appellant
Demack J. Helman J.

Chesterman J.

Judgment delivered 31 July 1998
Judgment of the Court

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE GRANTED AND THE SENTENCE IMPOSED IN THE DISTRICT COURT AT TOWNSVILLE SET ASIDE AND IN LIEU THE APPLICANT SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR FOUR AND A HALF YEARS, SUCH SENTENCE TO BE SERVED CONCURRENTLY WITH SENTENCES IMPOSED BY THE MAGISTRATES COURT ON 26 FEBRUARY 1998. DECLARATION MADE THAT THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY SERVED 106 DAYS IMPRISONMENT SOLELY IN RESPECT OF THIS CHARGE AND THIS PERIOD TO BE IMPRISONMENT ALREADY SERVED UNDER THIS SENTENCE. RECOMMENDATION MADE THAT THE APPLICANT BE ELIGIBLE FOR PAROLE AFTER SERVING ONE AND A HALF YEARS IMPRISONMENT.

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Appeal - Applicant assisted police in giving evidence against co-offender - Applicant also assisted police in respect of apprehension of offenders in unrelated matters - Effect on sentence and parole - Penalties and Sentences Act 1992, s13A. Thompson (1994) 76 A Crim. R. 75 applied.
Counsel:	Mr P. Callaghan for the applicant/appellant. Mr D. Meredith for the respondent.
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant/appellant. Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent.
Hearing Date:	19 June 1998
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 31 July 1998

On 30 March 1998, Steven Anthony Banks pleaded guilty in the District Court at Townsville to one count of armed robbery in company. The offence was committed on 26 January 1997. He was sentenced to six years imprisonment to be served concurrently with sentences imposed in the Townsville Magistrates Court on 26 February 1998. He seeks leave to appeal against that sentence on the basis that it is manifestly excessive.

The victims of the robbery were a married couple, a man aged sixty-one years and a woman aged fifty-eight years. Late in the night, they were woken in their home by three masked intruders who were armed with a sawn-off shot gun, a knife and a steel knife sharpener. Banks was not one of the three, but he had been asked to provide the shot gun. He was told it was for a "stickup" and he was offered $500.00 if he provided the gun, which he did.

The three intruders tied up the female victim but did not tie up the male victim. He had had a heart bypass operation and also suffered from a bad back. They stole approximately $2,000.00 in Australian currency, $200.00 in American currency and jewellery. They drove away in the victims’ Landcruiser, having cut the telephone wires. It took the female victim forty minutes or so to free herself. Her husband was apparently too unwell to assist. The police were called.

Next morning two vehicles were stopped by police at Bowen. Banks was in one of them. He had $750.00 on him. Identifiable jewellery taken from the victims was also…

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 Banks

Details

AGLC: R v Banks [1998] QCA 218
Case: [1998] QCA 218
Decision Date: 31/07/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Banks, appealed against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of South Australia. Banks was convicted of various criminal offences and faced sentencing for these crimes. The court had to consider the extent to which Banks' assistance to the police in giving evidence against his co-offenders and in the apprehension of offenders in unrelated matters should be taken into account when determining his sentence and parole eligibility.

The primary legal issue was the appropriate weight to be given to Banks' substantial assistance to the police under section 13A of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992. The court also had to consider whether the principles set out in Thompson (1994) 76 A Crim. R. 75 were applicable to this case. The court had to balance the nature and extent of Banks' assistance against the seriousness of the offences for which he was being sentenced.

In its decision, the court held that the significant assistance provided by Banks warranted a reduction in his sentence. The court found that his cooperation in giving evidence against co-offenders and assisting in the apprehension of other offenders in unrelated matters was substantial. The court applied the principles from Thompson, recognising the importance of encouraging defendants to assist law enforcement. Consequently, the court determined that a reduction in sentence was warranted, which also affected Banks' parole eligibility. The court adjusted the sentence to reflect the mitigating effect of Banks' assistance, ensuring that the final sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed and the level of cooperation shown.

The court's decision was that the appeal against sentence was upheld, and the sentence was reduced accordingly. The lower court was directed to re-assess the sentence and parole eligibility in light of the court's findings regarding the mitigating effect of Banks' substantial assistance to the police.

Orders