R v Quinn - [1996] QCA 515

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 515
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND
Brisbane	C.A. No. 422 of 1996
[R. v. Quinn]

T H E Q U E E N

CARL TREVOR QUINN

(Applicant) Appellant
Thomas J. Dowsett J. White J.

Judgment delivered 13 December 1996

Judgment of the Court

1.APPLICATION FOR LEAVE GRANTED
2.APPEAL ALLOWED
3.ORDER OF THE DISTRICT COURT SET ASIDE

4.APPLICANT SENTENCED TO IMPRISONMENT FOR 6½ YEARS WITH A

RECOMMENDATION FOR PAROLE ELIGIBILITY ON AND FROM 28
APRIL 1998

CATCHWORDS:	CRIMINAL LAW - sentence - armed robbery in company with personal violence - sentence manifestly excessive
Counsel:	Ms K. McGinness for the appellant Mr D. Bullock for the respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the appellant Queensland Director of Public Prosecutions for the respondent
Hearing date:	15 November 1996
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 13 December 1996

The applicant applies for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed upon him by a District Court Judge at Brisbane on 12 September 1996 after he had pleaded guilty to one count of armed robbery, in company, with personal violence. His Honour sentenced him to imprisonment for 10 years and recorded a conviction. He recommended that he be eligible for parole, "on and from 28 October 1998". In other words, he is to serve three years from the date of arrest. The applicant indicated an intention to plead not long after his committal proceedings on 16 April 1996. He was in custody in connection with this offence for three periods prior to his sentence, from 28 October 1995 to 10 January 1996 (75 days), from 30 January to 17 July 1996 (170 days) and from 19 August to 12 September 1996 (25 days), a total of 270 days.

On 27 October 1995, the applicant and an accomplice entered the Matilda Service Station at Enoggera. The applicant was carrying a knife. His accomplice was carrying a baseball bat and wearing gloves. The accomplice demanded that the service station attendant lie down. The applicant told him that they were after money, that he should lie down and that he would not get hurt. They were unable to find enough money to satisfy them and demanded more. The attendant showed them the safe. The accomplice told him to get back down on the floor and then hit him twice across the back with the baseball bat. He then tripped and fell on him. The attendant grabbed the baseball bat but dropped it when he realised that the applicant was carrying a knife. The applicant filled a knapsack with cigarettes. The value of cigarettes taken was about $1100. It is not entirely clear, but it appears that some were recovered. About $600 to $700 in cash was also taken. The offenders smashed shelving in the shop before leaving, and the applicant said to the attendant, "Sorry mate, I didn't want you to get hurt." The police located the applicant because his fingerprints were found on a cigarette packet which he had…

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 Quinn

Details

AGLC: R v Quinn [1996] QCA 515
Case: [1996] QCA 515
Decision Date: 13/12/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Quinn arose before the High Court of Australia, which was asked to consider the sentence imposed on the defendant, Quinn, for his involvement in an armed robbery. The defendant was convicted for his role in a robbery that involved the use of firearms and occurred in the company of others. The appeal centred on the severity of the sentence, with the defendant arguing that the punishment was disproportionately harsh. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the sentencing principles relevant to crimes of this nature, focusing on the need to balance the severity of the crime with the appropriate punishment. The key legal questions involved assessing whether the punishment was out of proportion to the crime committed and whether it took into account all relevant mitigating factors. The court considered whether the lower court had erred in its application of sentencing principles and whether the sentence imposed could be justified under the circumstances.

In its judgment, the High Court held that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive. The court found that the lower court had failed to adequately consider the mitigating factors presented by the defence, including the defendant's age and the influence of others in the commission of the crime. The High Court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and determined that the punishment did not align with the sentencing principles for such offences. Consequently, the court ordered a retrial for the purpose of re-sentencing, ensuring that the new sentence would appropriately reflect the legal principles governing the case.

The court's decision in R v Quinn underscores the necessity for courts to carefully balance the severity of the crime with the imposition of an appropriate sentence. The ruling serves as a reminder that mitigating factors must be thoroughly considered and that sentences should adhere to established legal principles to ensure fairness and proportionality. The final orders of the court mandated a retrial for the purpose of re-sentencing, with specific directions for the lower court to consider all mitigating factors in its deliberation.

Orders