R v Mather - [1999] QCA 226

99.226

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P PINCUS JA THOMAS JA

CA No 76 of 1999
THE QUEEN
v.

BRUCE FRANCIS MATHER	Applicant
BRISBANE ..DATE 17/06/99
JUDGMENT
170699 T22/HMH8 M/T COA138/99

THOMAS JA: The applicant was convicted in the District Court at Bowen of armed robbery. He was sentenced to four years' imprisonment along with an order for payment of compensation of $135. He was 35 years old at the time of the offence and had a good work record. He had a minor criminal history for a number of matters, but none of them amounted to an indictable offence, and none of them were similar or comparable to the present offence.

The circumstances were these. On 11 December 1998 he went to a Shell Service Station in Bowen early in the morning. The console operator heard someone come into

the store and then saw the applicant dressed in dark
overalls with a hood over his head with two holes cut
for his eyes. He was also wearing sunglasses. He
demanded money. She asked him to go away. He had a
plastic bag which contained something that looked like a
pistol and he tapped it on the counter, demanding that
she fill a bag with money from the till. He handed over
a pillow case. She saw that he was holding something
that appeared to have a handle in the other hand and she
was terrified. She took $135 from the till, which was
all that it contained, and handed it over. She saw him
walk across the driveway and notified the police.

The police quickly located the discarded clothing which ultimately led them to the applicant, who lived quite close by. He told the police that over some days preceding the incident, he had thought about stealing

2 JUDGMENT

170699 T22/HMH8 M/T COA138/99

some money from the store but his actual preparation was
limited to 20 minutes before the robbery. He used a
child's toy, apparently a crocodile head on a stick, and
altered it by painting it black so that if held in a
certain way it might look like a gun. He took a cushion
cover, cut the holes in it for the hood and also had a
plastic hammer in his pocket with the handle protruding
to make it look as if he had a second weapon.

The learned sentencing Judge observed that robbery was an extremely serious and prevalent offence and that places like service stations are extremely vulnerable to such offences. The applicant committed the offence because he was short of money and had spent the money not only on food but also on alcohol. His Honour observed, correctly, that deterrence is an important sentencing factor. By that, I take it His Honour was referring to general deterrence.

There are, however, a number of mitigating factors in the present matter. These included, not necessarily in order of importance, the payment of the restitution and a further offer of compensation for the benefit of the victim…

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 Mather

Details

AGLC: R v Mather [1999] QCA 226
Case: [1999] QCA 226
Decision Date: 17/06/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Mather, the applicant was convicted in the District Court at Bowen for armed robbery. The applicant, Bruce Francis Mather, was sentenced to four years' imprisonment and ordered to pay compensation of $135. Mather appealed the sentence, arguing it was excessive. The appeal was heard in the Court of Appeal, where the issue was whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the nature of the offence, the limited planning, the use of imitation weapons, and the absence of physical force or threats during the robbery. It also took into account the mitigating factors, such as the payment of restitution, Mather's cooperation with the police, his early guilty plea, his good work history, and the disruption in his life at the time of the offence.

The Court of Appeal examined comparable cases to determine if the sentence was within the appropriate range. The judges found that while the sentence was at the higher end of the range, it was not beyond the possible range of the sentencing discretion of the original tribunal. The Court acknowledged the serious nature of the offence and the need for deterrence but also recognised the mitigating factors. Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, upholding the original sentence. The judges concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and was within the acceptable range for such an offence.

The final orders of the Court of Appeal were that the application for leave to appeal was refused, and the original sentence of four years' imprisonment with the order for payment of compensation remained in place. The judges, McMurdo P, Thomas JA, and Pincus JA, agreed on the outcome and reasons for the decision.

Orders