R v Dunn - [1994] QCA 147

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1994] QCA 147

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 29 of 1994

Brisbane
[R. v. Dunn]

BETWEEN

T H E Q U E E N
v.
GEOFFREY AELAIN DUNN

(Applicant)
Pincus J.A.
McPherson J.A.
Mackenzie J.

Judgment delivered 13/05/94
Reasons for judgment by the Court

APPEAL ALLOWED; THE SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT IN RESPECT OF COUNT 1 SET ASIDE AND IN LIEU THEREOF SENTENCE OF IMPRISONMENT FOR 7 YEARS IMPOSED WITH A RECOMMENDATION THAT APPLICANT BE CONSIDERED

F	OR PAROLE AFTER 3 YEARS.

CATCHWORDSCRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - Psychiatric abnormality short of insanity - Armed robbery - Shotgun discharged - Offence committed to impress girlfriend at her mother's insistence - aged 25 years with I.Q. of 59 - Vulnerable to manipulation - Previous conviction for robbery - Whether sentence manifestly excessive.

Counsel:R. Collins for the applicant
P. Callaghan for the respondent
Solicitors:Legal Aid Office for the applicant

Director of Prosecutions for the respondent

Hearing Date:

28 March 1994

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT
Judgment delivered the Thirteenth day of May 1994

The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court at Townsville to a charge of robbery with violence while being armed, and a further charge of wilful damage to a computer screen. For the second offence he was sentenced to imprisonment for 12 months, which was to be concurrent with the sentence of imprisonment for 9 years imposed for the robbery, but with a recommendation for release on parole after 4 years. The second offence was committed in the course of the robbery when the applicant discharged a loaded shotgun through a closed internal door at the premises where the offences were committed.

The circumstances are that at about 12.30 am on 11 February 1993 the applicant, with a stocking over his head, walked into a service station and menaced one of the attendants there with a 12 gauge shotgun which he was holding. He demanded money and was given $429 from the cash register, and then insisted on money from the safe, pointing the gun barrel at the attendant's face. He then became distracted by a second attendant, whom he also menaced with the gun while demanding that the safe be opened. The first attendant had meanwhile succeeded in locking himself into an office. He was trying to make a telephone call when the applicant fired a shot through the door. It was this that damaged the computer and gave rise to the offence of wilful damage. The shot narrowly missed the first attendant and was in fact discharged within only inches of the face of the second attendant. The applicant then demanded and received car keys from two customers, who in obedience to his command were lying on the floor of the service station.

The sentencing judge rightly regarded the robbery offence as a serious instance of its kind, having in mind that the applicant had threatened people with a loaded weapon, which he had proceeded to discharge in circumstances in which those…

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 Dunn

Details

AGLC: R v Dunn [1994] QCA 147
Case: [1994] QCA 147
Decision Date: 13/05/1994

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of Queensland, the case of R v Dunn was heard. The applicant, Geoffrey Aelain Dunn, was convicted of robbery with violence while armed and wilful damage to a computer screen. He was sentenced to imprisonment for 9 years for the robbery and 12 months for the damage, with the sentences to run concurrently, and a recommendation for parole after 4 years for the robbery. The applicant appealed against the severity of his sentence.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed on the applicant was manifestly excessive. The Court considered the applicant's background, his intellectual disability, and his vulnerability to manipulation by others. The Court also weighed the seriousness of the offence, the use of a loaded firearm, and the risk of reoffending.

The Court found that while the offence was serious, the applicant's diminished mental capacity and vulnerability to manipulation warranted a reduced sentence. The Court noted that the applicant had an IQ of 59, indicating a low level of mental functioning, and was suggestible and gullible. The Court also considered the applicant's previous criminal history, which included drug and driving offences but only one other serious offence comparable to the current offence. The Court concluded that a sentence of 9 years was manifestly excessive for the applicant and reduced the sentence to 7 years with a recommendation for parole after 3 years. The Court also directed that the applicant receive appropriate psychiatric treatment and that measures be taken to prevent any risk of sexual assault during his imprisonment.

Orders