R v Quach No. Sccrm-03-320 - [2004] SASC 87

R v QUACH
[2004] SASC 87
Full Court: Perry, Bleby and Sulan JJ

PERRY J: I agree with the order proposed by Justice Bleby and with his reasons.
BLEBY J: This is an appeal by leave against the sentence imposed upon the appellant following his plea of guilty in the District Court to five armed robberies, one attempted armed robbery and one unlawful wounding.
All of the offences occurred between 2 and 9 October 2002. The offending began in the early evening of 2 October 2002 when the appellant approached the attendant at an adult bookshop at Holden Hill, brandishing a knife. He grabbed the attendant by the throat with his other hand, stole his mobile telephone and took $320 from the till.
He repeated the offence, this time in company with another offender, whom I will call V, the next evening, when he confronted the same attendant, produced a knife and stole $200.
Two days later, on 6 October he entered the shop again in company with V and confronted the owner with a knife, but made off when he was challenged. That was the attempted armed robbery.
Later the same evening he and V went to an adult bookshop in Broadview, where he threatened the female attendant with a knife and stole $200 from the till.
Again in company with V, two days later, the appellant threatened a female attendant at another adult bookshop in Parafield Gardens and stole her mobile telephone and $110 from the till.
The last offence involved an elderly lady, who on the day after the Parafield Gardens robbery, was accosted in the street by the appellant who demanded her handbag. She resisted when the appellant attempted to pull the strap of the handbag, and the appellant then cut the victim’s left hand, whereupon she released the bag and called for help. V was present on that occasion but did not participate in the robbery or the wounding.
The appellant was driven away in V’s car, but was followed, and police came on the scene and arrested the appellant and V.
On that occasion, the appellant stole $230. At the same time he inflicted a very serious injury to the victim’s left hand, which was her dominant hand. Four tendons were severed and joints fractured and, despite surgery, she suffers a permanent restriction in the use of the hand.
V, the appellant’s co-offender, was just under 18 at the time of these offences. He was charged with a number of offences in the Youth Court but was committed for trial, and for sentence on some counts, to the District Court. He eventually pleaded guilty in the District Court to 4 counts of armed robbery, one count of attempted armed robbery and one count of assisting an offender.
As in the case of the appellant, V’s first armed robbery was committed alone but was similar in nature to that committed by the appellant. The three remaining counts of armed robbery and the one count of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Quach No. Sccrm-03-320 and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2004] SASC 87
Decision Date: 15 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v QUACH involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the appellant following his guilty plea to multiple serious offences, including armed robberies, attempted armed robbery, and unlawful wounding. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Perry, Bleby, and Sulan JJ. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was appropriate, particularly in light of the appellant's age and the need to balance deterrence with rehabilitation. The appellant, who was 19 years old at the time of the offences, had committed a series of armed robberies and other related offences between 2 and 9 October 2002. The court found that the sentencing Judge had appropriately considered the appellant's early guilty plea, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation in determining the sentence. However, the Court identified an error in the calculation of the discount for the early guilty plea, which resulted in a sentence that was harsher than it should have been. The Court concluded that a discount of 25% rather than 20% was appropriate, leading to a final head sentence of 13 years rather than 14 years. Additionally, the Court found that the non-parole period should be reduced to six years and six months to reflect the appellant's age and rehabilitation prospects. The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the original sentence, and imposed a new sentence of 13 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and six months, to commence from the date of the appellant's custody.

Orders