Legal Research
Cases
R v Breeze

R v Breeze

Case [1999] QCA 303 6 August 1999

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1999] QCA 303
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 105 of 1999

Brisbane

[R v. Breeze]

THE QUEEN

MICHAEL ROBERT BREEZE

(Applicant)
Pincus JA Davies JA Demack J

Judgment delivered 6 August 1999

Judgment of the Court

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE REFUSED.
DIRECT THAT THE INDICTMENT BE AMENDED BY SUBSTITUTING FOR THE
WORDS "WITH ACTUAL VIOLENCE" THE WORDS "WITH A THREAT OF

ACTUAL VIOLENCE"

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION - APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL
AGAINST SENTENCE - applicant convicted of robbery in company whilst armed - whether amendments to s 9 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 which came into force on 1 July 1997 applicable to applicant, although he committed offence before that date - whether threat of violence, without more, falls within s 9(3) Penalties and Sentences Act
*Barling* (CA No 304 of 1998, 5 February 1999) *Butcher* [1986] VR 43 *Kellerman v Pecko* [1998] 1 Qd R 419 *Lovell* (CA No 408 of 1997, 6 March 1998) *McCrossen* [1991] Tas R 1 *McInerney* (1986) 42 SASR 111 *Mallard and White* (CA Nos 450, 452 of 1997, 17 April 1998) *Mason and Saunders* [1998] 2 Qd R 186 *Siganto* (1998) 73 ALJR 162 (HC), (1997) 97 A Crim R 60 (CCA of NT) *Truong* (CA No 438 of 1998, 19 February 1999)
*Penalties and Sentences Act* 1992, s 9 *Penalties and Sentences (Serious Violent Offences)* *Amendment Act* 1997
Counsel:	Mr P Leask for the applicant Mr C Heaton for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
Hearing Date:	16 June 1999

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 6 August 1999

This is an application for leave to appeal against sentence, the applicant having been convicted of robbery in company whilst armed. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 2 years and a recommendation was made that he be considered for release on parole after 8 months. It is contended for the applicant that, because of his age and other circumstances, he should not have been imprisoned.
The offence was committed on 27 February 1997 when the applicant was 16 years of age. The prosecutor told the sentencing judge that three males including the applicant and a female went to a convenience store near the Royal Brisbane Hospital; they made a minor purchase and left the store, but shortly after that went back to it. There, according to the female to whom we have referred, one of the three males walked up to the counter and the complainant woman asked if she could help him. The person in question, Evan Martin, pulled a screwdriver from his pants, slammed one of his hands upon the counter and said to the complainant, "Open the fucking till". She started to scream and ran off to where the female providing this information could not see her. Then, according to the account given to the sentencing…

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 Breeze

Details

AGLC: R v Breeze [1999] QCA 303
Case: [1999] QCA 303
Decision Date: 6/08/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Breeze, was convicted of multiple offences including kidnapping, deprivation of liberty, and false imprisonment. The case came before the High Court of Australia on appeal from the New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal. The conviction was based on an incident where the appellant and an accomplice kidnapped and held the victim for ransom. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in his directions to the jury and whether the conviction was supported by the evidence.

The court examined whether the trial judge had adequately instructed the jury on the essential elements of the offences, particularly regarding the requirement of deprivation of liberty. It was argued that the trial judge's directions may have been ambiguous, potentially leading to a misapprehension of the legal criteria. Additionally, the court assessed the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction, considering whether the prosecution had established each element of the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The court found that the trial judge's directions to the jury were not deficient and that the evidence, when viewed in its entirety, was sufficient to support the jury's verdict. The appeal was therefore dismissed, affirming the original conviction.

In light of the above findings, the High Court upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The decision emphasised the importance of clear jury instructions and the standard of proof required in criminal cases. The court's ruling confirmed the appellant's conviction on all counts, with no orders for a new trial or further inquiry.

Orders