R v Coglan

Case [2004] QCA 486


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Coglan [2004] QCA 486

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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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

Details
AGLC
R v Coglan [2004] QCA 486
Case
[2004] QCA 486
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Coglan, sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland following his conviction for armed robbery committed in company with violence. The Supreme Court had sentenced Coglan to three years imprisonment, a sentence he now argued was manifestly excessive. The Full Court of the Supreme Court was tasked with deciding whether the sentence was indeed manifestly excessive, and whether leave to appeal should be granted.

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.