R v Moss

Case [1999] QCA 426 8 October 1999

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

99.426

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
DAVIES JA

JONES J

CA No 270 of 1999

THE QUEEN

TERRY ANDREW MOSS

(Applicant) Appellant

BRISBANE
..DATE 08/10/99
081099 T13/JB M/T COA243/99
McPHERSON JA: The applicant for leave to appeal against
sentence in this matter was convicted on his own plea of
guilty in the District Court at Townsville. The offence of
which he was convicted was armed robbery, and the sentence
imposed in respect of it was imprisonment for six years,
with a recommendation for parole after two years.

What happened was that on the night of 26 November 1998 the complainant, who was a 19-year-old university student, was working alone at a Video Ezy store at the time when the applicant came in. It was then about 11 p.m., and the applicant chose a video and walked to the front counter where the complainant was waiting to serve. After a brief conversation, the applicant turned away, and then turned back again to face the complainant.

He produced a knife from his clothing, where it had been concealed, and pointed it at the complainant. The knife was about 20 centimetres long, with a black handle and had a serrated blade. The applicant said to the complainant, "I'm going to make this real simple for you. I'm going to take all your money and you're going to give it to me now."

The complainant backed away and the applicant made as if to climb over the counter. The complainant then put his hands in the air and moved to the cash drawer. When he began removing money from the till, the applicant took his foot off the counter. The applicant demanded $50 and $100 bills. 081099 T13/JB M/T COA243/99

Two customers entered the store at about this time and the applicant hid his knife from their view. He told the complainant to "fucking hurry up", and then reached over the counter and removed the money from the till before leaving the store. The sum taken was about $450.

The robbery had, meanwhile, been recorded on video tape.
The applicant wore no disguise, and was recognised by a
member of the public after the police had made a media
release. His fingerprints were located on the front counter
in the video shop.

The applicant had, in the meantime, left Townsville and travelled to Perth via Darwin and Alice Springs. He was ultimately extradited from Western Australia and remanded in custody. He pleaded guilty to an ex officio indictment in respect of the charge, on a case which has been described as, which no doubt was, overwhelmingly strong.

The Crown Prosecutor, at the sentence hearing, submitted
that the starting range for an offence of this type should
be four years. At the request of the learned sentencing
Judge, the prosecutor obtained statistics about the number
of armed robberies which had been recorded in the last
months in the northern region, which includes the Townsville
district and the Townsville region. Those statistics refer
to robberies…

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 Moss

Details

AGLC: R v Moss [1999] QCA 426
Case: [1999] QCA 426
Decision Date: 8/10/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v Terry Andrew Moss, the applicant appealed against the sentence imposed on him for armed robbery. The applicant had pleaded guilty to the offence, which involved robbing a video store at knifepoint. The District Court judge had sentenced the applicant to six years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after two years. The applicant argued that the sentence was excessive and should be reduced to four years, which was the sentence imposed in a similar case. The Court of Appeal considered the applicant's criminal history, the circumstances of the offence, and the need for deterrence when deciding the appropriate sentence. The Court held that the sentence was too high and reduced it to five years imprisonment.

The legal issues in this case were whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was excessive and whether the Court of Appeal should vary the sentence. The Court of Appeal considered the principles of sentencing for armed robbery, the need for consistency in sentencing, and the personal circumstances of the applicant. The Court held that the sentence was too high and reduced it to five years imprisonment, which it considered to be an appropriate sentence for this type of offence. The Court also noted that the sentencing judge had set a new range of sentences for armed robberies without proper evidence of an increase in the prevalence of such offences. The Court emphasised that any changes to the sentencing range should be made by the Court of Appeal, not by individual District Court judges.

Orders