R v Brooks - [2002] QCA 153

[2002] QCA 153

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
McMURDO P
ATKINSON J

CA No 29 of 2002

THE QUEEN

DANIEL TERRANCE BROOKS (Appellant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 26/04/2002

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: The applicant pleaded guilty on 10 January 2002 to three counts of stealing, one count of entering premises with intent, one count of armed robbery, one count of armed robbery in company and one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle.

He was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment for the armed robbery in company and to lesser concurrent sentences on the remaining offences. A period of 200 days was declared to be already served under the sentence.

The applicant, who appears for himself on this application, contends that the sentence was manifestly excessive; that inappropriate comparative sentences were used by prosecution and defence for the sentencing Judge's guidance and that too much emphasis was placed by the sentencing Judge on the victim impact statement.

The applicant was 27 at sentence. He cooperated fully with the authorities, entered an early plea by way of ex officio indictment and volunteered information which assisted the police to clear up the armed robbery simpliciter charge.

The applicant, however, has a lengthy criminal history commencing with convictions for property offences in the Beaudesert Childrens Court in 1989. He had further convictions for offences of dishonesty in the Brisbane Childrens Court in 1990. Later that year, in the Brisbane District Court he was convicted of armed robbery in company with personal violence and was placed in two years care and control of the Director of Children's Services. His criminal history continued in 1991 when he was placed on probation for two years in the Brisbane Magistrates Court. Later that year he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for escaping legal custody. His offending continued throughout 1991 when he was convicted of further offences of dishonesty and was sentenced to a short term of imprisonment followed by 18 months probation. In 1992 he was sentenced to six months' imprisonment for breaking and entering a place with intent, wilful and unlawful destruction of property and assault with intent to prevent arrest. His offending behaviour continued throughout 1992 and 1993 when he was sentenced to further terms of imprisonment for offences of dishonesty. In July that year he was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment for the offences of assault occasioning bodily harm and unlawful wounding. Whilst in prison he was sentenced to terms of imprisonment for assaulting a correctional officer and assault occasioning bodily harm. In 1994 in Rockhampton he was sentenced to six months cumulative imprisonment for the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm whilst in company and later that year to a further term of nine months' cumulative imprisonment for the offence of armed robbery in company. He committed offences whilst in gaol for which he was sentenced to further cumulative terms of imprisonment. In 1995 he was sentenced to three years' imprisonment cumulative upon his sentences then being served, but with a recommendation for…

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 Brooks

Details

AGLC: R v Brooks [2002] QCA 153
Case: [2002] QCA 153
Decision Date: 26/04/2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Brooks, the appellant, Daniel Terrance Brooks, was convicted of multiple charges including stealing, entering premises with intent, armed robbery, armed robbery in company, and unlawful use of a motor vehicle. Brooks was sentenced to nine years' imprisonment for the armed robbery in company, with lesser concurrent sentences for the other charges. Brooks appealed the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive, that inappropriate comparative sentences were used, and that too much emphasis was placed on the victim impact statement.

The court examined Brooks' extensive criminal history, which began in 1989 with property offences and progressed to more serious crimes such as armed robbery and assault. The court also considered the nature of the current offences, which involved significant planning and had a devastating effect on one of the victims, a bank teller who developed severe panic disorder and could not work. Brooks' counsel argued that Brooks had a troubled childhood and turned to drugs to cope with his anxiety, but the court found that these factors were not enough to mitigate the severity of his crimes.

The court found that the sentence imposed by the primary judge was within the appropriate range, considering the seriousness of the crimes and Brooks' criminal history. The court also noted that the primary judge had properly considered the victim impact statement but had adequately balanced this with the mitigating factors in sentencing Brooks. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the sentence upheld.

The final orders of the court were that the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.

Orders