R v Rate

[1996] QCA 541

COURT OF APPEAL

[1996] QCA 541

WILLIAMS J
AMBROSE J

BYRNE J

CA No 184 of 1996
THE QUEEN
v.

DANIEL BRENT RATE Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 12/07/96
120796 D.1 T9/SB M/T COA157/96
WILLIAMS J: I will ask my brother Ambrose to deliver the first
judgment.

AMBROSE J: This is an application for leave to appeal against the sentence imposed upon the applicant on 15 April 1996 for six years' detention or imprisonment for the part he played in the armed robbery by a number of persons with personal violence of persons employing him at the time on a farm.

Upon this application it is contended by him that he really was not a party to the robbery although he accepts that he ought to have informed investigating police officers that he was aware of the identity of some of the persons involved in it.

However, this contention before this Court is quite inconsistent with the Crown case which was accepted by the jury who convicted him of being a joint offender with others who committed the robbery in question. His principle objection, as I understand it, is that because other persons involved in the robbery who had played a more active role in the commission of the offence all received the benefit of an early recommendation for parole he ought also receive such a recommendation.

The problem with that contention is that he defended the matter whereas the other persons where more severe penalties were imposed pleaded guilty and obviously the recommendation made for early parole eligibility for them was based upon that fact.

In my view, on all of the material, there is no basis upon which
120796 D.1 T9/SB M/T COA157/96
the applicant could claim that the learned sentencing Judge
erred in the exercise of his discretion in simply allowing the
statutory entitlement to eligibility for parole to operate. He
will, in fact, become eligible for parole after serving 50 per
cent of the sentence imposed and as it happens that will be the
time at which the other offenders become eligible for parole.

However, in my view there is nothing to suggest that the special circumstances which justified a reduction in the statutory period in their case applies in his case. I would simply therefore reject the application.

WILLIAMS J: I agree.

BYRNE J: I agree.

WILLIAMS J: The order of the Court will be leave to appeal refused, application dismissed.

-----