SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
CITATION:
PARTIES:
R
v
COGLAN, Benjamin James(applicant)
FILE NO/S:
CA No 284 of 2004
DC No 214 of 2004
DIVISION:
Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:
Sentence application
ORIGINATING COURT:
District Court at Cairns
DELIVERED ON:
17 December 2004
DELIVERED AT:
Brisbane
HEARING DATE:
23 November 2004
JUDGES:
McPherson JA, Jerrard JA, 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 dismissed
CATCHWORDS:
CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING – ARMED ROBBERY – where applicant convicted after a trial of armed robbery in company with violence, and sentenced to three years imprisonment – whether sentence manifestly excessive
COUNSEL:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
B G Campbell for the respondent
SOLICITORS:
The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Qld) for the respondent
McPHERSON JA: The applicant pleaded not guilty to a charge of armed robbery in company with violence. He was convicted of this offence after a trial in the District Court at Cairns and was sentenced to serve a term of three years imprisonment, with a declaration that 5 days of presentence custody had already been served. He applies for leave to appeal against that sentence.
On 10 November 2003, the applicant, with three other co-offenders, robbed a convenience store at a service station in Cairns. The applicant was 19 years old at the time of the offence.
They all drove to the convenience store, in the applicant’s car. The plan was that the applicant would pretend to be a customer, so that the console operator would open the doors to the convenience store, which were normally kept closed at that time of the night as a security measure until the console operator decided to open them and let the customer in.
The applicant walked into the convenience store. The doors were not locked, as they had expected, because the 54 year old female complainant who was employed at the store was outside tidying up. She followed the applicant into the store. Shortly after this, two of the co-offenders, Denning Paull and Ashley, a juvenile, went into the convenience store armed with knives and with pillow cases over their heads to disguise themselves.
Ashley pushed the complainant into a staff-only security door, and told her to open it. The complainant at first could not remember the code that was required to open the security door. Ashley told her that she had until the count of 3 to get the door open. The complainant remembered the code and opened the door. Ashley continued to threaten her, and told her to open the cash register, which she did. At one stage Ashley held his knife to the throat of the complainant.
They stole a total of $415 cash, before leaving the convenience store in the applicant’s car, which was driven by Mitchell Smith, who was the other co‑offender. They abandoned the…
Continue reading R v Coglan
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Coglan [2004] QCA 486
- Case
- [2004] QCA 486
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the relevant principles of sentencing for armed robbery. The court considered the gravity of the offence, the circumstances in which it was committed, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. Additionally, the court assessed the proportionality of the sentence in relation to the applicant's culpability and the harm caused to the victims.
The Full Court found that the sentence of three years imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the seriousness of the offence but held that the sentence reflected the appropriate balance between the need for punishment and the principles of proportionality and individualisation. The court noted that the sentence took into account the applicant's culpability, the harm caused to the victims, and the need for deterrence. Accordingly, the court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against the sentence.
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.