R v Brown - [2000] QCA 402

[2000] QCA 402

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
THOMAS JA
WHITE J

CA No 183 of 2000

THE QUEEN

WAYNE GARY BROWN Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 29/09/2000

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: The applicant was convicted on his plea of guilty in the District Court of the offence of armed robbery with personal violence. He was sentenced to imprisonment for six years with a declaration of having spent 111 days in custody. Now he wishes to appeal against the severity of his sentence.

He entered the Mermaid Beach Post Office at 11.30 a.m. on the morning of 8 November 1999. His face was covered and he was holding a toy plastic gun, as it turned out to be, and a shopping bag. He demanded money from the postal employees and jumped on the counter and ordered them about. He opened the cash till, the drawer of which fell on the floor, spilling its contents.

He then ordered one of the employees to get on to the floor and he pushed him down using some force to the back of the employee's head. He tried to pick up the money, but without much success. He shoved the shopping bag into the face of one employee, who suddenly grabbed the applicant's hand and engaged in a struggle. The applicant eventually lost his grip on the bag and fled the scene, pursued by one or more of the postal workers. He was caught and held until the police arrived.

It was a graphically unsuccessful enterprise, which is not to say that it did not induce fear in those who were the targets of it. Postal workers in that part of Queensland seem to be frequent victims of crimes of this kind: see for example R v. Martin & King [1999] 10 September, in this Court, involving another daylight robbery, on that occasion at the Post Office at Tugun.

The head sentence is, I think, within the range for an offence of this kind, perpetrated as it was on persons working in a public institution that serves the community. It is in fact not far removed from the sentence propounded by the experienced solicitor who appeared for the applicant at the hearing. He submitted that a head sentence of six to seven years, with a recommendation after two and a half years was appropriate; or alternatively, five years with no such recommendation.

The sentence imposed here of six years is not far removed from that result. The real problem confronting the applicant is his age and his criminal record. He is no longer a young man. He was 39 at the time of the offence and is now 40 years of age. He has a long history of offences. It began when he was only 11 years old, and, from the time when he was 18, he sustained the following convictions.

First, some 10 or 11 counts of break and enter, together on one occasion with a schedule of numerous such offences; also possession of stolen…

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 [2000] QCA 402
Case: [2000] QCA 402
Decision Date: 29/09/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Brown before the Queensland Court of Appeal involved the applicant, Wayne Gary Brown, who sought to appeal against the severity of his sentence. Brown was convicted in the District Court of armed robbery with personal violence and was sentenced to imprisonment for six years, having already spent 111 days in custody. The offence involved Brown entering the Mermaid Beach Post Office while disguised, wielding a toy plastic gun, and demanding money from postal employees. During the incident, Brown used force against one of the employees, causing them to fall to the ground. Despite his efforts, Brown left empty-handed after a struggle and was subsequently apprehended by postal workers until police arrived.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was excessive or manifestly inappropriate. The Court had to consider the nature and circumstances of the offence, Brown's criminal history, his age, and his efforts towards rehabilitation, including a period of abstinence from crime and genuine remorse. Counsel for Brown argued for a sentence at the lower end of the proposed range, with a recommendation for parole after two and a half years.

In delivering the judgment, McPherson JA noted that the six-year sentence was within the expected range for such an offence, particularly given the public service context and the fear induced in the victims. The Court acknowledged Brown's extensive criminal history, which began at a young age and included numerous instances of armed robbery, but also recognised his efforts to rehabilitate, including a period of no criminal activity for over a decade prior to the offence. The Court further considered Brown's plea of guilty, his remorse, and his attempts to improve himself while in prison. Despite these mitigating factors, the Court found that the sentence was not excessive or harsh, and thus upheld the original sentence. Thomas JA and White JA concurred with the decision, affirming that the sentence was within the permissible range and that there was no basis for appellate interference.

The final order of the Court was to refuse the application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the District Court.

Orders