R v Brown - [2003] QCA 372

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Brown [2003] QCA 372

PARTIES:

R
v
BROWN, Darby Patrick
(applicant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 209 of 2003
DC No 1145 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

28 August 2003

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 August 2003

JUDGES:

Williams and Jerrard JJA and Philippides J
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant convicted of eight counts of armed robbery – where sentenced to nine years imprisonment – where applicant had extensive criminal history – where applicant had written a letter to a newspaper apologising for the crimes – where other unusual circumstances existed which motivated the crimes – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive

R v Faulkner [1997] QCA 181; CA No 113 of 1997, 30 May 1997, cited
R v Kapitano [2002] QCA 496; CA No 196 of 2002, 11 November 2002, cited
R v McDonald [2001] QCA 238; CA No 46 of 2001, 22 June 2001, cited
R v Matheson [2001] QCA 4; CA No 226 of 2000, 30 January 2001, cited
R v Onley [1994] QCA 199; CA No 72 of 1994, 18 May 1994, distinguished

COUNSEL:

A J Rafter for the applicant
P F Rutledge for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

WILLIAMS JA: The applicant pleaded guilty on the 26th of May 2003 to an ex officio indictment charging him with eight counts of armed robbery.
He was sentenced to nine years imprisonment and a declaration was made that he had served some 272 days in presentence custody. He seeks leave to appeal against the sentence.
Seven of the eight robberies were committed on financial institutions and the remaining one involved the armed robbery of a Flight Centre outlet in George Street, Brisbane.
On each occasion, the offender was not disguised and presented, usually to a female, a note saying variously, "I have a firearm." "Do not alert anyone." "Give me $10,000 or someone will die."
On at least four occasions, the applicant showed the person from whom the demand was made, a gun. But on the occasion of the robbery of Flight Centre, the travel consultant involved saw what she believed to be a knife or syringe pointing towards her.
Three of the persons who were victims of the robberies provided victim impact statements and they demonstrate the significant trauma which was caused to the victims of the robberies.
In the eight robberies, the applicant obtained a total of $37,520.95.
He was born in July 1964 which made him aged about 37 when the offences were committed and now aged…

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 Brown

Details

AGLC: R v Brown [2003] QCA 372
Case: [2003] QCA 372
Decision Date: 28 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Brown, was convicted of eight counts of armed robbery and sentenced to nine years imprisonment. Brown appealed against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard by the court, which needed to consider whether the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances. The court examined the applicant's extensive criminal history, the nature of the crimes, and the unusual circumstances that led to the offences. It also took into account a letter Brown had written to a newspaper apologising for the crimes. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the applicant's criminal history, the nature of the crimes, and the unusual circumstances that motivated the offences. The court had to weigh these factors against the severity of the sentence and determine if there was a significant disproportion between the sentence and the crimes committed. The court also considered the applicant's remorse as expressed in a letter to a newspaper. These issues required careful judicial consideration to ensure that justice was served.

In reaching its decision, the court analysed the various factors in Brown's case. It noted his extensive criminal history, which indicated a pattern of behaviour that warranted a significant sentence. The court also examined the nature of the armed robberies, which were serious crimes involving violence and the use of firearms. Furthermore, the court considered the unusual circumstances that motivated Brown to commit the crimes, which, while not excusing the behaviour, provided some context for the offences. Additionally, the court acknowledged Brown's letter of apology, which demonstrated a degree of remorse. After weighing all these factors, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and upheld the original sentence.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence 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 Brown [2003] QCA 372
PARTIES:	R v BROWN, Darby Patrick (applicant)
FILE NO/S:	CA No 209 of 2003 DC No 1145 of 2003
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	28 August 2003
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 August 2003
JUDGES:	Williams and Jerrard JJA and Philippides J Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW – JURISDICTION, PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDER – where applicant convicted of eight counts of armed robbery – where sentenced to nine years imprisonment – where applicant had extensive criminal history – where applicant had written a letter to a newspaper apologising for the crimes – where other unusual circumstances existed which motivated the crimes – whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive R v Faulkner [1997] QCA 181; CA No 113 of 1997, 30 May 1997, cited R v Kapitano [2002] QCA 496; CA No 196 of 2002, 11 November 2002, cited R v McDonald [2001] QCA 238; CA No 46 of 2001, 22 June 2001, cited R v Matheson [2001] QCA 4; CA No 226 of 2000, 30 January 2001, cited R v Onley [1994] QCA 199; CA No 72 of 1994, 18 May 1994, distinguished
COUNSEL:	A J Rafter for the applicant P F Rutledge for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent