R v Jones - [2000] QCA 84

[R v Jones]
[2000] QCA 84

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA
DAVIES JA
McPHERSON JA

CA No 393 of 1999

THE QUEEN

GEORGE EDWARD JONES Applicant

BRISBANE

..DATE 17/03/2000

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: The applicant pleaded guilty in the District Court on 29 October last year to entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence and armed robbery in company both on 14 September 1997. On the same day he was sentenced to imprisonment for four years on the first of those offences and eight years together with a declaration that it was a serious violent offence in respect of the second. He seeks leave to appeal against those sentences, effectively against the sentence of eight years together with a declaration.

At the time of the commission of these offences the applicant was 55 years of age and he is now 57. Although he has no prior history of offences of violence, as the second of these offences undoubtedly was, he has a long criminal history mostly of offences of dishonesty from 1956 to 1989. He was first imprisoned in 1960 and between then and 1989 he spent a good deal of his life in prison. On that last occasion in 1989 he was sentenced to three years imprisonment for multiple offences of breaking, entering and stealing. He has no criminal history between his release from prison in respect of those offences and the commission of the offences the subject of this application.

The victims of these offences were a married couple aged 61 and 53 who ran a service station at Hattonvale and who lived in an adjoining residence. They had closed the station for the night and were returning to their home with the daily takings. The appellant and his co-offender were lying in wait. They were wearing balaclavas. The applicant was armed with a sawn-off rifle and his co-offender was armed with a knife. They had clearly planned and timed this invasion.

As the victims entered their home the two offenders ran in after them. The male complainant attempted to fight off the applicant and during that struggle the rifle discharged although fortunately not in the direction of either of the victims. During the course of the struggle between the applicant and the male victim, the applicant called on his co-offender to help him by knifing the victim, his
co-offender having earlier urged the applicant to shoot him.

The offender with the knife did in fact assault the male victim upon which he dropped a torch which he was carrying. The applicant then picked it up and struck the victim with it violently several times to the forehead causing him almost to lose consciousness. This attack resulted in a sustained period of concussion and long-term effects which included dizziness two years later.

Meanwhile, the female victim had the knife of the
co-offender pressed against her throat and at one stage during the course of the struggle received cuts to her hands in trying to…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2000] QCA 84
Case: [2000] QCA 84
Decision Date: 17/03/2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jones involves the applicant, George Edward Jones, who was convicted in the District Court of entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence and armed robbery in company on 14 September 1997. He was sentenced to four years for the first offence and eight years for the second, with a declaration that the second offence was a serious violent offence. Jones, who has a lengthy criminal history predominantly of dishonesty offences, seeks leave to appeal against the sentence of eight years with a declaration. Jones, aged 55 at the time of the offences, was armed with a sawn-off rifle during a planned home invasion where he and his co-offender subjected the victims, a married couple, to sustained violence. The male victim suffered serious physical injuries, and the female victim suffered cuts and emotional trauma. The attack had long-term effects on both victims, including financial consequences as they were forced to sell their business at a loss.

The legal issues in this appeal revolve around the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the District Court, specifically the eight-year sentence with a declaration that the offence was a serious violent offence. The applicant argues that the guilty plea should have demonstrated a degree of remorse and that the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the principles in Part 9A of the Penalties and Sentences Act. The respondent contends that the sentence, taking into account the severity and sustained nature of the violence, was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal considered the arguments presented and concluded that the District Court's sentence was appropriate. The judges noted the substantial and sustained violence involved in the offence, which justified the severity of the sentence. They also observed that while the applicant's guilty plea may not necessarily indicate remorse, it did avoid the need for the victims to give evidence, which was of some importance in the sentencing process. The Court found that the sentence, when considering the declaration, was not manifestly excessive and reflected the seriousness of the offence. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders