R v Shipman

Case [2004] QCA 171


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

R v Shipman [2004] QCA 171

PARTIES:

R
v
SHIPMAN, Bradley Scott
 
(applicant/appellant)

FILE NO/S:

CA No 37 of 2004
DC No 1931 of 2003

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Sentence Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

District Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

20 May 2004

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

20 May 2004

JUDGES:

McMurdo P and Chesterman and Atkinson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2.   Appeal against sentence allowed to the limited extent of substituting a sentence of five years imprisonment for the six years imprisonment imposed on count 5 in Indictment 1931 of 2003

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW – JUDGMENT AND PUNISHMENT – SENTENCE – FACTORS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT – PARITY – CO-OFFENDERS – DISCRIMINATION BETWEEN CO-OFFENDERS – where applicant convicted on plea of guilty to eight offences, including armed robbery and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle whilst adversely intoxicated, and three summary offences – where sentenced to effective period of imprisonment of 6 years with a recommendation for eligibility for post-prison community based release after two years – where applicant had very lengthy criminal history – where co-offender for armed robbery and dangerous driving sentenced to four years imprisonment suspended after 12 months – where co-offender ten years younger than applicant with less serious criminal history – where co-offender had not committed additional offences with which applicant was charged – whether applicant could have justifiable sense of grievance about parity of sentences – whether sentence was manifestly excessive

COUNSEL:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
R G Martin for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

The applicant appeared on his own behalf
Director of Public Prosecutions (Queensland) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT:  On 16 January 2004 the applicant pleaded guilty to eight offences contained in two indictments and three summary offences were also taken into account.  The three count indictment contained one count of fraud, one count of being in a dwelling and stealing and one count of breaking and entering premises and stealing.  He was sentenced to four years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after two years in respect of the last two counts and to 12 months imprisonment on the first.  The five count indictment contained one count of entering premises and stealing, one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation, one count of entering premises with intent, one count of armed robbery and 1 count of dangerous operation of a motor vehicle whilst adversely intoxicated.  In respect of the last two counts he was sentenced to six years imprisonment with a recommendation for parole eligibility after two years and in respect of the last offence, disqualified from holding and obtaining a driver's licence for four years.  As to the remaining offences he was sentenced to four years imprisonment with a recommendation for eligibility for parole after two years.  The…

Continue reading R v Shipman

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
R v Shipman [2004] QCA 171
Case
[2004] QCA 171
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, who pleaded guilty to eight offences including armed robbery and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle whilst intoxicated, as well as three summary offences, appealed against the sentence imposed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The applicant was sentenced to an effective period of imprisonment of 6 years with a recommendation for eligibility for post-prison community-based release after two years. The applicant had a lengthy criminal history and was dissatisfied with the parity of sentences between the applicant and a co-offender who was ten years younger and had a less serious criminal history. The co-offender was sentenced to four years imprisonment, suspended after 12 months, for the same armed robbery and dangerous driving offences.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant could have a justifiable sense of grievance about the parity of sentences, and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court considered the principles of parity and discrimination between co-offenders, and the factors that should be taken into account when determining a sentence. The court also considered the need for general deterrence and the need to protect the community.

The court found that the applicant's lengthy criminal history was a relevant consideration when determining the sentence, but that the applicant's age and the disparity in the sentences between the applicant and the co-offender were also relevant factors. The court found that the applicant could have a justifiable sense of grievance about the parity of sentences, and that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court allowed the appeal against sentence to the limited extent of substituting a sentence of five years imprisonment for the six years imprisonment imposed on count 5 in Indictment 1931 of 2003.

The court granted the applicant leave to appeal against sentence and allowed the appeal to the limited extent of substituting a sentence of five years imprisonment for the six years imprisonment imposed on count 5 in Indictment 1931 of 2003. The court emphasised the importance of considering the principles of parity and discrimination between co-offenders when determining a sentence, and the need to take into account all relevant factors. The court also emphasised the need for general deterrence and the need to protect the community.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted

2. Appeal against sentence allowed to the limited extent of substituting a sentence of five years imprisonment for the six years imprisonment imposed on count 5 in Indictment 1931 of 2003

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.