R v Orchard & Sullivan

[1992] QCA 106

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 106

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 9 of 1991

C.A. No. 10 of 1991

T H E Q U E E N

v.

WILLIAM ORCHARD and

GARRY LIESLIE SULLIVAN

(Respondent)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

(Appellant)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Delivered the 15th day of May, 1992

On 13 December, 1991, the Respondents were convicted of
twelve offences of armed robbery in company and two offences
of armed robbery in company with personal violence. The
offences involved a series of armed hold ups of banks and
security vans at Brisbane and the Gold Coast between May 1985

and October 1991 in which a total of $3,278,185.00 was stolen.

Most of the money not spent on living expenses was lost

through gambling, but the respondents were sentenced on the
basis that between $600,000 and $700,000 would be recovered by

one or more of the security companies which was robbed.

The offences were extremely serious, and include the six
largest robberies ever in Queensland in terms of money taken.
The offences were all carefully planned and skilfully
executed, with the respondents masked and armed with loaded
firearms. There were nine bank robberies in which respondents
generally required customers to lie on the floor while staff
or security guards were forced at pistol point to hand over
money. In one of the bank robberies, entry was gained by
ramming in the rear door with a motor vehicle after the bank
had closed for the day.

On occasions the guards were handcuffed, on one occasion

one was struck in the face with a pistol and received injuries
that needed suturing, and on another a guard was chained
around the neck and restrained on the ground by means of a
foot on his head while petrol was poured upon an adjacent
armoured van which was threatened to be set alight if money
was not passed out. On one or two occasions shots were fired
in the air to deter pursuit. Innocent persons such as
customers and guards and other staff would undoubtedly have

been severely frightened by their experience.

The respondents' criminality continued for almost six and

a half years and ceased only when they were apprehended.
However, once that occurred, they co-operated fully. They
were interviewed over a course of three days, at the end of
which they consented to the presentation of ex officio
indictments. During the course of the interviews, each made
full admissions, and in respect of at least three of the
offences, there would have been insufficient evidence to
convict without those admissions. Within six weeks of their
apprehension, the respondents had pleaded guilty and been

sentenced.

Orchard was 54 years of age and an alcoholic, and

Sullivan, his stepson, was 44 years old. Both were heavy gamblers, and one of the motives for the offences was to obtain money with which to gamble. Orchard also engaged in the robberies because he had tired of working long hours in menial jobs in order to provide for his family. Both expressed regret. The sentencing judge concluded that neither is likely to re-offend when released.

Each of the respondents was sentenced on each offence to

imprisonment for 20 years with a recommendation that parole be
considered after seven and a half years, the sentences to be
served concurrently.

The Attorney-General has appealed on the grounds that the

sentences are not adequate. His submission is that a head
sentence of about 23 years should have been imposed with a
consequential increase in the period to be served before
parole is considered, with the suggestion that a period of 10
years would be appropriate for that purpose. It was accepted
in this Court, as it was before the sentencing judge, that the
respondents' early pleas of guilty and other matters made a
recommendation for early parole appropriate provided that

there was a suitably severe head sentence.

The sentencing judge correctly apprehended the public

outrage at the prevalence of such crimes in which questions of
public safety are involved, and emphasise that the head
sentence should reflect the gravity of the offences. Before
this Court, the Attorney-General contends that, nonetheless,
while life sentences were not called for, imprisonment for 23

years was necessary.

There is little guidance to be obtained from other
decisions, but R v. Aston (No.1) 1991 QR 363 is of some
assistance. While Aston stole less than the present
respondents, he had engaged in a series of armed robberies and
had an appalling criminal record although he was only 32 years
of age. He had numerous convictions, including one in 1977
for rape for which he was sentenced to imprisonment for 12
years. While on parole for that offence, he conducted seven
separate robberies over a period from September 1987 to May
1988. In five trials, involving eight counts of armed
robbery, he was successively sentenced to 11 years
imprisonment (in effect a term of twelve years), 15 years
imprisonment, life (reduced on appeal to 16 years) and 18
years. On his conviction on a further charge of armed robbery
he was sentenced to life imprisonment but, once again, the
Court of Criminal Appeal set aside the sentence of life
imprisonment. In lieu thereof, it imposed a sentence of

imprisonment for 20 years.

While the time may be at hand for the community's

intolerance of crimes such as those engaged in by the
respondents to be marked by heavier sentences, this is not
such an occasion. In the circumstances of this case, there is
no rational basis upon which that conclusion could be reached.
As was submitted for the appellant, the proper range within
which the sentences upon the respondent should have been
imposed was above 20 years and lower than life (which was
accepted as the equivalent of 26 years imprisonment) or that
20 years was inadequate while 23 years imprisonment is
correct.

Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A.No. 9 of 1991

C.A.No. 10 of 1991

T H E Q U E E N

v.

WILLIAM ORCHARD and

GARRY LIESLIE SULLIVAN

(Respondent)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

(Appellant)

The President
Mr Justice McPherson

Mr Justice MacKenzie

Judgment of the Court delivered the 15th

day of May, 1992

APPEAL DISMISSED

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 9 of 1991

C.A. No. 10 of 1991

Before the Court of Appeal

The President
Mr Justice McPherson

Mr Justice MacKenzie

T H E Q U E E N

v.

WILLIAM ORCHARD and

GARRY LIESLIE SULLIVAN

(Respondent)

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND

(Appellant)

(Respondent)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Delivered the 15th day of May, 1992

MINUTE OF ORDER: APPEAL DISMISSED

CATCHWORDS:

Counsel: Mr D. Bullock for the appellant

Mr S. Herbert for the respondent

Solicitors:	Director of Prosecutions for the appellant
Messrs. Price and Roobottom for the respondents

Hearing Dates: 13th May, 1992