R v McDonald

Case [2001] QCA 238


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION: R v McDonald [2001] QCA 238
PARTIES: R
v
McDONALD, Bruce Lee
(applicant)
FILE NO/S: CA No 46 of 2001
DC Nos 309 of 2000, 311 of 2000
DIVISION: Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING: Sentence Application
ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Southport

DELIVERED ON: 22 June 2001
DELIVERED AT: Brisbane
HEARING DATE: 6 June 2001
JUDGES: Thomas JA, Muir and Atkinson JJ
Joint reasons for judgment of Thomas JA and Atkinson J;  separate reasons of Muir J concurring as to the orders made
ORDER: Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused
CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL AND INQUIRY AFTER CONVICTION – APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE – APPEAL BY CONVICTED PERSONS – APPLICATION TO REDUCE SENTENCE – WHEN REFUSED – application for leave to appeal against sentence – whether sentences were manifestly excessive – whether sentences failed to give sufficient effect to the rehabilitative process of sentencing – where applicant pleaded guilty to numerous serious offences – where offences included armed robbery whilst in company, armed robbery, attempted armed robbery – where automatic declaration that applicant was a serious and violent offender as 10 year sentences imposed – use of various weapons when committing offences – threats of violence but no actual violence – severe mental anguish caused to a number of victims – some degree of planning for robberies – offences committed over short period of time while on bail or after arrest warrant issued – extensive criminal history – recommendation for rehabilitative treatment – substantial custodial sentence appropriate

Penalties and Sentences Act 1992

R v Crossley [1999] QCA 223, CA No 477 of 1998,
18 June 1999, distinguished
R v Matthewson [2001] QCA 4, CA No 226 of 2000, 30 January 2001, distinguished
R v McMahon, CA No 433 of 1997,
13 April 1998, distinguished

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf

D Meredith for the respondent

SOLICITORS: The appellant appeared on his own behalf.
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent
  1. THOMAS JA  and ATKINSON J:  The applicant was convicted on 4 September 2000 on his own plea of guilty on one count of armed robbery, one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation and one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle; and on 12 February 2001 on one count of armed robbery whilst in company, seven counts of armed robbery, one count of attempted armed robbery, seven counts of unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle, one count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle, one count of burglary, two counts of stealing and one count of fraud.  He was sentenced on 12 February 2001 in the District Court in Southport to 10 years imprisonment on each of the counts of armed robbery and armed robbery in company; 8 years imprisonment on the count of attempted armed robbery; 3…

Continue reading R v McDonald

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v McDonald [2001] QCA 238
Case
[2001] QCA 238
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v McDonald involved the appellant, McDonald, who was convicted of multiple serious offences including armed robbery, armed robbery whilst in company, and attempted armed robbery. McDonald appealed against his sentence, which included a declaration that he was a serious and violent offender, and sought a reduction in his sentence. The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly excessive and whether they failed to give sufficient effect to the rehabilitative process of sentencing.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offences, which involved the use of various weapons, threats of violence, and the infliction of severe mental anguish on the victims. It was noted that McDonald had a significant criminal history and had committed the offences while on bail or after an arrest warrant was issued. The court also considered the recommendation for rehabilitative treatment. In assessing whether the sentences were manifestly excessive, the court held that the sentences were not manifestly excessive, as they reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the need for general and specific deterrence. The court also found that the sentences appropriately gave effect to the rehabilitative process, considering the recommendations for treatment and the need for punishment and denunciation.

The application for leave to appeal against the sentence was dismissed. The court concluded that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the various considerations in sentencing, including the need for general and specific deterrence, punishment, and rehabilitation. The sentences imposed were considered to be appropriate in all the circumstances, and there were no grounds for the court to interfere with the trial judge's sentencing decision.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.