R v. Burrows

Case [2008] QCA 378


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:  R v Burrows [2008] QCA 378
PARTIES:  R
v
BURROWS, Peter Charles
(applicant)
FILE NO/S:  CA No 248 of 2008
DC No 2409 of 2008
DIVISION:  Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:  Sentence Application
ORIGINATING 
COURT: 
District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX  1 December 2008
TEMPORE ON: 
DELIVERED AT:  Brisbane
HEARING DATE:  1 December 2008
JUDGES:  Keane, Muir and Fraser JJA
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 dismissed
CATCHWORDS:  CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – GROUNDS FOR INTERFERENCE – SENTENCE MANIFESTLY EXCESSIVE OR INADEQUATE – where the applicant appeals against a sentence of eight years imprisonment imposed after a plea of guilty to armed robbery – where the applicant was sentenced at the same time after pleading guilty to a number of other offences – where the applicant has an extensive criminal history, including a sentence of thirteen years imprisonment for armed robbery – whether the primary judge took into account the applicant’s guilty plea pursuant to s 13 Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) – whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive
Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld), s 13
R v Bradford [1997] QCA 391, considered
R v Brown [2000] QCA 402, considered
R v Lund [2000] QCA 85, considered
COUNSEL:  S M Ryan for the applicant
M J Copley SC for the respondent
SOLICITORS:  Legal Aid Queensland for the applicant
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the
respondent

MUIR JA: The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of eight years imprisonment imposed in the District Court on 17 September 2008 after a plea of guilty to a count of armed robbery. He was sentenced at the same time for a number of other offences to which he also pleaded guilty. Two of the offences, deprivation of liberty and assault, were on the same indictment and were committed at the time of the robbery.

The applicant, wearing a balaclava and holding a kitchen knife, encountered a woman leaving a pharmacy with her three year old child. He threatened her verbally and with the knife and forced her back into the shop. He then, whilst continuing to brandish his knife, demanded that a pharmacy assistant provide him with drugs. He chased her around the counter and another pharmacy assistant intervened. The first-mentioned assistant obtained a quantity of drugs and gave them to the applicant. The applicant also demanded cash and was provided with $1,205 in notes.

He then ran off but was quickly apprehended by police. He cooperated with police and the money and drugs were recovered. Not unexpectedly, the applicant's victims, all women, were badly affected by their frightening experience and have had lasting adverse psychological effects.

The applicant, who was 44 at the time of this offence, had an extensive criminal history. He was first imprisoned in 1981 when 18 years of age for…

Continue reading R v. Burrows

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Burrows [2008] QCA 378
Case
[2008] QCA 378
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v. Burrows, the applicant appealed against an eight-year imprisonment sentence imposed following a guilty plea to armed robbery. The applicant, who had a significant criminal history including a previous thirteen-year sentence for armed robbery, was also sentenced for several other offences. The primary issue in the appeal was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, particularly considering the applicant's guilty plea and extensive criminal record.

The court needed to determine if the primary judge appropriately took into account the applicant's guilty plea under section 13 of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld). This section requires that a guilty plea should result in a more lenient sentence. The court also needed to assess if the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive or inadequate, considering the totality of the circumstances, including the applicant's criminal history and the nature of the current offences.

The court found that the primary judge had adequately considered the applicant's guilty plea, which resulted in a reduction of the sentence. The court also determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate. The court was satisfied that the primary judge had properly balanced the seriousness of the crimes, the applicant's criminal history, and the mitigating effect of the guilty plea. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence dismissed

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.