R v Jeffers

[1992] QCA 364

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 364

DAVIES JA
MOYNIHAN J

AMBROSE J

CA No 185 of 1992

THE QUEEN

v.

DARREN CHRISTOPHER JEFFERS	Applicant
CA No 186 of 1992
THE QUEEN
v.
SHANE O’REILLY RYAN	Respondent
ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND	Appellant
BRISBANE ..DATE 10/09/92
JUDGMENT

100992
DAVIES JA: These are two Attorney’s appeals against sentence. Both offenders Jeffers and
Ryan were convicted of armed robbery in company. Jeffers was also convicted of two counts of
unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation and Ryan was also convicted
on two counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation.

The relevant offence occurred on 18 January 1991. Jeffers at that time was 24 years of age. He had an extensive criminal history, extending over a substantial period - 11 years or so - including a number of offences involving dishonesty. He was also, in fact, at the time of the commission of this offence, an escapee from prison. The offence involved the Metway Bank at Noosa Heads, which on the day in question was robbed by three men in a professional way. Two entered the bank with firearms with which they threatened customers, staff and passers-by. Money was stolen. Jeffers was the driver of the get-away car. He was also armed and he used his gun to frighten potential witnesses to the crime.

Jeffers was convicted after a trial. He therefore demonstrated no remorse. It would no doubt have been a frightening experience for the victims ad it is, of course, important to mention the very bad criminal record and the fact that he was an escapee from lawful custody at the time. The sentence imposed upon Jeffers was effectively five and a half years - that is five and a half years on the first count and two years for the two counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle to be served concurrently. However he had spent between 8 and 10 months in gaol on remand and it was common ground between the parties that that was an effective term of 7 years.

Having regard to the circumstances which I have mentioned, it is my view that the sentence imposed was quite disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the circumstances which I have mentioned with respect to Jeffers at the time he committed the offence. I would therefore substitute a term of imprisonment of 10 years.

In the case of Ryan, he was one of the men who, in fact, entered and robbed the bank. At the time of the offence he was only 20 years of age. Notwithstanding that he had an extensive criminal record including another offence of armed robbery committed only 6 months before this. He was also an escapee from custody. It was the - the robbery which I’ve already described was clearly something which was well planned. Cars had been stolen as transport, firearms were used and people were frightened.

I have mentioned in the case of Jeffers and I mention here also the emotional trauma to the people who were customers or staff of the bank, the risk of death or injury to people by the use of firearms and the consequent need to deter crimes of this kind. Ryan had, in fact, spent 6 to 8 weeks on remand and that should be taken into account, though no great account need to be taken the period being so short.

He was sentenced to 8 years imprisonment with a recommendation that he be eligible for parole after 20 months - that being the sentence imposed upon the first offence. The second offence he also received a term of imprisonment of 2 years. Ryan unlike Jeffers pleaded guilty. I would have some doubt as to whether that was through any great feeling of remorse. There was no doubt a benefit to Ryan in pleading guilty to this and a considerable number of other offences at the same time. Nevertheless it saved the Crown a great deal of trouble and expense and he must be given credit for the fact that he did, in fact, plead guilty. Notwithstanding the fact that he had an unenviable record - criminal record - he’s also a very young man. He was only 20 years of age at the date of conviction and now and only 19 at the time of the commission of this offence.

I’m also convinced that in this case the sentence imposed by the learned sentencing Judge was totally disproportionate to the offence which I’ve described and I would therefore substitute a period of 12 years imprisonment. However in the case of Ryan because of the plea of guilty and the saving of time and expense to the Crown, I would recommend that he be eligible for parole after serving 4 years.

MOYNIHAN J: I agree with the order proposed for the reasons given.

AMBROSE J: I also agree.

DAVIES JA: The orders of the Court are:

1.          In relation to Jeffers -

(a)         The appeal is allowed.

(b)        The sentence imposed below in relation to the count of armed robbery in company of 5 ½ years imprisonment is set aside and in lieu thereof a sentence of imprisonment of 10 years imprisonment is imposed in relation to that count.

(c)         The sentences imposed below are otherwise to stand.

2.          In relation to Ryan -

(a)         The appeal is allowed.

(b)        The sentence imposed below of 8 years with a recommendation that the applicant be released on parole after serving 20 months is set aside. In lieu thereof a sentence is imposed in relation to that count of 12 years imprisonment with a recommendation that the applicant be released on parole after serving 4 years.

(c)         Otherwise the sentences imposed below are to stand.

- - - - - -