R v Campbell - [1997] QCA 314

COURT OF APPEAL

[1997] QCA 314

PINCUS JA
McPHERSON JA

de JERSEY J

CA No 287 of 1997
THE QUEEN
v.

WILLIAM EDWARD CAMPBELL

Appellant

BRISBANE
..DATE 29/08/97
290897 D.1 T28/SB21 M/T COA197/97
McPHERSON JA: Yesterday for reasons that were then explained
this Court granted an extension of time within which to appeal
against the sentence in this matter. The effect of the sentence
imposed in the District Court at Townsville for the most serous
of the three offences charged was imprisonment for four years.

The applicant pleaded guilty to that offence, which was robbery with violence in company, as well as the one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and one of housebreaking. The offences were committed on three different occasions within a period of three months from June to September 1996.

The applicant was arrested on one of the charges on 25 October 1996. It should be noted that he committed a further offence in December 1996.

The principal offence was the robbery which was the second of the three offences I have mentioned. The complainant, a young man of 18 years was working the evening shift at Kentucky Fried Chicken. After finishing work he waited at the roadside with two of his young co-workers. One of them was a 14-year-old girl, whose parents were coming to collect her.

A group of 10 youths including the applicant came past. One of them was carrying a stick. The applicant stood in front of the complainant while one member of the group began punching the complainant on the side and back of the head. A demand was made for his wallet and the applicant grabbed it from the complainant's hand. $40 was removed from it and the empty wallet was thrown on the ground. This done, the group moved 290897 D.1 T28/SB21 M/T COA197/97

off. The complainant suffered bruising to the back of the head,
cheeks and ear.

The applicant was 18 years old when he committed the offence, and 19 when sentenced; but apart from these offences he has, in the short time available to him, compiled a considerable criminal record including convictions in 1996 for possession of drugs, three instances of wilful damage, stealing, two of assaulting the police, one assault occasioning bodily harm and two break and enter offences.

He had been granted probation on 5 August 1996 but breached it by committing assaults on 20 December 1996, and no doubt also by his subsequent conviction for these offences. He was on probation at the time each of the subject offences was committed.

Before this Court the only substantial question is whether the three offences for which he was sentenced in the District Court on 13 May 1996 merited imprisonment for four years, or whether a sentence of that duration should be considered excessive.

My firm impression is that a robbery of this character, where not much physical harm is done to the victim, has in the past generally attracted terms of imprisonment ranging from…

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 Campbell

Details

AGLC: R v Campbell [1997] QCA 314
Case: [1997] QCA 314
Decision Date: 29/08/1997

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the Queensland Court of Appeal, the appellant, William Edward Campbell, sought an appeal against the sentence imposed by the District Court at Townsville. Campbell was found guilty of robbery with violence in company, unlawful use of a motor vehicle, and housebreaking. The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the four-year imprisonment sentence for the most serious offence, robbery with violence in company, was excessive. The Court had to consider the nature of the offence, the appellant's criminal history, and the principle that the sentencing for a first-time imprisonment should not be excessively harsh.

The Court of Appeal considered the severity of the robbery, which involved a group of youths assaulting a young man and stealing his wallet. The panel noted that while the injuries were not severe, the circumstances of the robbery were threatening and involved multiple offenders. The Court also weighed Campbell's criminal history, which included various offences committed while he was on probation. The Court of Appeal found that, despite the appellant's criminal background, the four-year sentence for the robbery was excessive, especially considering it was his first term of imprisonment. The judges concluded that a sentence towards the higher end of the usual range for such an offence would be more appropriate, and that the sentence should be reduced to three years.

The Court of Appeal granted the appeal, reduced the sentence for the robbery to three years, and recommended that Campbell be considered for parole after serving 12 months of this sentence. The other sentences, 18 months for unlawful use of a motor vehicle and 12 months for housebreaking, were to be served concurrently with the reduced sentence for the robbery. The final order of the Court was that the appeal was allowed, the sentence for the robbery was set at three years, and parole consideration was recommended after 12 months. The other sentences were confirmed as is.

Orders