Criminal law - Sentencing - Armed robberies - Offences committed to obtain funds to satisfy addictions - Sentences of five years and six months' imprisonment with a minimum term of two years six months' imprisonment not manifestly excessive.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Crown
Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.
K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant McKee
Mr C.B. Boyce
Victoria Legal Aid
For the Appellant Brooks
Mr L. Carter
Leanne Warren & Associates
BUCHANAN, J.A.:
Kim McKee is 24 years old. Kassandra Brooks is 27 years old. Both have been addicted to heroin for many years. On 12 August 2001, McKee and a man armed with a gun robbed a chemist shop. While the male co-offender pointed the gun at the chemist, McKee walked behind the counter, emptied the contents of the cash register, taking approximately $600 to $700 and a large number of prescription drugs. On the evening of 23 September 2001, Brooks drove a stolen car to a pharmacy at Avondale Heights in the company of a man. Brooks smashed the front window of the pharmacy, entered it and stole a quantity of prescription tablets.
Later that night and in the early morning of the following day McKee and Brooks together committed a number of crimes. They first drove to a service station in the stolen car, McKee armed with a hammer and Brooks armed with a knife, their faces covered with scarves or cloth. A young attendant in the store saw the appellants and ran into an office and locked the door. McKee demanded that he open the cash register and threatened to kill him if he did not. She attempted unsuccessfully to open the cash register. The appellants stole packets of cigarettes and escaped in the stolen car. Next, the appellants drove to a mobile phone shop where Brooks broke a side window, entered the store and stole cash from the register. She smashed display cases and then stole some 30 mobile phones and accessories. Soon afterwards the appellants drove to a service station. McKee entered the shop area and spoke to the attendant. She signalled Brooks to enter the shop. Brooks did so, her face covered with a cloth or scarf. McKee then produced a large screwdriver and threatened the attendant. She demanded that the cash register be opened and stole cash and cigarettes.
At about midday on 24 September 2001, McKee and Brooks were travelling in the stolen car when it was involved in a minor collision with a van in Braybrook. Both drivers parked their vehicles, and spoke to each other. The driver of the van entered the Braybrook post office. While he was inside, the appellants broke…
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 McKee
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v McKee [2003] VSCA 16
Case
[2003] VSCA 16
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v McKee involves the defendant, McKee, who was convicted of multiple armed robberies. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for these offences, which were committed to fund his drug addiction. The matter was heard in a higher court where the appeal against sentence was considered.
The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in this case, given the circumstances of the offences and the need to consider the defendant's addiction as a mitigating factor. The court needed to weigh the seriousness of the crimes, which involved violence and the use of firearms, against the personal circumstances of the defendant.
The court determined that the sentencing principles applicable to such cases required consideration of the gravity of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the personal circumstances of the offender. In this instance, while the offences were serious, the court recognised that the defendant's actions were driven by his addiction. The court concluded that the sentences imposed, five years and six months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months, were not manifestly excessive when all factors were considered. The appeal against sentence was dismissed.
The court's final orders were that the sentences imposed by the lower court were affirmed, and the defendant's appeal against sentence was dismissed. The sentences would remain as five years and six months' imprisonment, with a minimum term of two years and six months' imprisonment to be served before parole eligibility.