R v Rogers - [1998] QCA 382

[1998] QCA 382

COURT OF APPEAL
THOMAS JA
SHEPHERDSON J

JONES J

CA No 278 of 1998
THE QUEEN
v.

MANA ROGERS	(Applicant)
BRISBANE
..DATE 09/10/98
091098 T26-27/JJD24 M/T COA259/98

JONES J: On 7 August 1998 the applicant was convicted on his own plea of the offence of robbery, which occurred on 11 April 1997. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment. This is an application for leave to appeal against that sentence. He was at the time of the offence 32 years of age, having been born on 21 September 1965.

On the day in question, at 6.45 in the evening, the applicant
entered the newsagency/general store, operated by Mr and
Mrs Austin. The business also held an agency for the
Commonwealth Bank. The applicant appeared at the store,
hunched over, with his shirt pulled up over the bridge of his
nose and he was wearing a cap on his head.

He jumped the counter and placed himself beside Mrs Austin, causing her to scream out. He then took $1,200 from the bank cash drawer. The applicant then attempted to leave through the rear of the store, but was intercepted by Mr Austin. After a brief scuffle, the applicant made his escape from the scene.

But for this jostling with Mr Austin, the applicant's conduct could only be regarded as stealing simpliciter. Mr Austin pursued the applicant, confronted him at the taxi rank and then reported the matter to the police. The applicant was arrested later that evening at the airport. He was known to Mr and Mrs Austin and his de facto wife was a regular customer at the store.

At the time of the incident, the applicant had no prior criminal convictions, though he had been before the Magistrates Court in respect of a breach of a domestic violence order. By the time of the sentencing he had acquired 091098 T26-27/JJD24 M/T COA259/98

convictions for possession of dangerous drugs, breach of bail
and wilful destruction of property.

These are matters to be taken into account, but in respect of this offence, the applicant was entitled to be dealt with as a first offender. It was suggested that the applicant acted impulsively and was at the time affected by alcoholic liquor.

The learned sentencing Judge appears to have accepted that as

being the case.

It is clear also that the scuffle with Mr Austin did not result in any physical damage to him, but it is reasonable to assume that there would have been some emotional upset for both Mr and Mrs Austin. The level of sentence, imprisonment for three years for a first offender for these circumstances, is somewhat out of line with those imposed in cases of a similar kind to which we have been referred.

I note particularly The Queen v. Hans, CA 95 of 1996; The Queen v. Campbell, CA 287 of 1997 and other cases referred to during argument. It is not necessary to engage in any minute analysis of the various cases.…

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 Rogers

Details

AGLC: R v Rogers [1998] QCA 382
Case: [1998] QCA 382
Decision Date: 9/10/1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Rogers, the applicant, Mana Rogers, was convicted of robbery and sentenced to three years imprisonment. Rogers appealed against the severity of the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The robbery occurred on 11 April 1997, when Rogers entered a newsagency/general store, jumped the counter, and stole $1,200 from the bank cash drawer. Rogers was intercepted by the store owner but managed to escape. Although Rogers' conduct could have been classified as simple theft but for the scuffle with the store owner, the court upheld the conviction for robbery on a technicality. The court acknowledged that the sentence was disproportionate when compared to similar cases.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the robbery conviction was appropriate given the circumstances. The court examined the nature of the crime, the applicant's criminal history, and the sentencing in similar cases. The Court of Appeal found the sentence to be excessive and decided to reduce it to 12 months imprisonment, to be suspended after three months, with an operative period of two years. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and noted the lack of physical harm caused by the offence.

The Court of Appeal granted leave to appeal and reduced the sentence to 12 months imprisonment, to be suspended after serving three months, with an operative period of two years. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality in sentencing and noted the lack of physical harm caused by the offence. The judges also highlighted the need for consistency in sentencing similar cases, and the court's decision was influenced by previous cases with lesser penalties for more serious crimes.

Orders