R v Law - [2001] QCA 208

[2001] QCA 208

COURT OF APPEAL

THOMAS JA
HELMAN J
ATKINSON J

CA No 230 of 2000

THE QUEEN

BRODIE SPENCER LAW

BRISBANE

..DATE 31/05/2001

JUDGMENT

ATKINSON J: Brodie Spencer Law was convicted on his own plea of guilty on two counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted armed robbery on 17 August 2000 in the District Court in Ipswich.

The learned sentencing Judge imposed a sentence of 12 months imprisonment on each count to be served concurrently by way of an intensive corrections order in the community. The applicant for leave to appeal against sentence, the Attorney-General, submits that the sentence is manifestly inadequate and that the sentence which should have been imposed was three years imprisonment but that taking into account the fact that the respondent had already undergone 43 days of the intensive corrections order, some reduction of that is appropriate.

The circumstances of the offences are that they each occurred on the evening of 23 April 2000. The first offence involved an 18 year old who was sitting outside the Ipswich railway station. The respondent demanded that he give him his bicycle and the complainant, after hesitating, noticed that the respondent carried a large butcher's knife which was pointed about 4 inches from his chest. He feared for his safety and gave the bicycle to the respondent.

The next two offences relate to one incident. The complainants, an elderly couple, were at the East Ipswich railway station when the respondent demanded money from each of them while armed with a knife and stole the woman's purse. The incident was video taped. The police apprehended the respondent a short distance away on the same evening. He was found in possession of a knife and a quantity of money.

The respondent was 22 years of age at the time when the offences were committed. He had spent 99 days in
pre-sentence custody. The learned sentencing Judge referred to the following matters as relevant on sentence. Firstly, the offences in some respects were unplanned and the timing of each offence and the victims involved were accidental but the respondent had clearly been contemplating this type of offence.

Secondly, this type of offence is only too common throughout Queensland particularly in larger centres of population and carries heavy penalties. Thirdly, the respondent had to be punished and taking into account the frequent occurrence of the offences and the need to ensure the safety of the public his actions called for a sentence as a deterrent for others who may hear of the sentence.

Fourthly, the knife used, whether very large or very small, caused fear to the persons who experienced the knife being produced at them and fifthly, a sentence of two to three years imprisonment appeared to be appropriate given comparable cases.

There is no error of principle disclosed in any of those matters to which the learned sentencing Judge referred. He also said that he gave regard to the obligation to do what he could…

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 Law

Details

AGLC: R v Law [2001] QCA 208
Case: [2001] QCA 208
Decision Date: 31/05/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Brodie Spencer Law was convicted on his own plea of guilty on two counts of armed robbery and one count of attempted armed robbery. He was sentenced to a total of 12 months imprisonment to be served concurrently by way of an intensive corrections order. The Attorney-General, acting as the applicant for leave to appeal, argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and should be increased to three years imprisonment. The court had to decide whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and, if so, what the appropriate sentence should be.

The court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly inadequate. The court considered the nature of the offences, the offender's criminal history, and the need for deterrence. The court found that the offender had a significant criminal history, including numerous convictions for violent and drug-related offences. The court also found that the offender had committed the offences while armed with a knife, causing fear and intimidation to the victims. The court found that the original sentence did not adequately address the need for punishment and deterrence.

The court found that the appropriate sentence should be two years and three months imprisonment on each count, to be served concurrently. The court took into account the offender's early guilty plea, personal circumstances, and the fact that he had already served 43 days of the intensive corrections order. The court also made a declaration under section 161 of the Penalties and Sentences Act that the offender had already spent 113 days in custody, including 99 days of pre-sentence custody and 14 days in custody from 17 to 31 May 2001. The court allowed the appeal and imposed the substituted sentence.

Orders