R v Stinton - [1999] QCA 15

99.15

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA

CA No 289 of 1998

THE QUEEN

PETER BARRIE STINTON

BRISBANE

..DATE 05/02/99

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: The applicant for leave to appeal against sentence was convicted in the District Court on guilty pleas to various offences and was sentenced as follows: count 1, burglary, imprisonment for 10 years; count 2 and 3, both of which were charges of deprivation of liberty, imprisonment for three years in each instance; count 4, unlawful possession of a motor vehicle, imprisonment for five years; and count 5, armed robbery in company, imprisonment for 10 years. The effective sentence overall was therefore imprisonment for 10 years and no recommendation for parole was made in the sentence.

The circumstances of the offences can be summarised as follows. On the night of 26 January 1997 the complainants, Mr and Mrs Brown, who were or are 63 and 59 years of age respectively, were at home in their house which is described as a residence on acreage. Mr Brown suffered back problems which affected his mobility or agility and caused him pain from time to time. On that evening the complainants had locked and secured their home at Geiseman Road, Black River, and they went to sleep, they said, at about 9.30 p.m.

At about 11.40 that night they were wakened by the presence of three masked intruders in their house. One of them was carrying a shotgun. He ran round to Mr Brown's side of the bed and pointed the gun at Mr Brown's head, telling him not to do anything stupid. Another of the men was carrying something like a butcher's steel, and he stood at the end of the bed. The third man did not appear to have anything in his hands and he stood on Mrs Brown's side of the bed. The applicant was the third man. As will emerge later, he admitted to obtaining a gun which he had borrowed from his brother.

The men were yelling words to the effect "Where's the money, Where are the takings?", over and over. The applicant remained in the bedroom for the whole or most of the time. The other two were going in and out of the bedroom, and they went through the house, ransacking it and looking for money or other valuable property to steal. The intruders remained in the house for approximately 40 minutes. During that time one of them asked Mr Brown if he had any guns in the house. Mr Brown replied no, but some guns were located in the house. The man then told Mr Brown that if he were to lie again he would kill him. The applicant, who was one of the intruders, searched through the bedroom looking for jewellery. He took all of Mrs Brown's jewellery with the exception of a couple of pieces of sentimental value.

When the ordeal of the complainants was almost over, one of the intruders tied Mrs Brown's legs together…

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 Stinton

Details

AGLC: R v Stinton [1999] QCA 15
Case: [1999] QCA 15
Decision Date: 5 February 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Peter Barrie Stinton, sought leave to appeal against his sentence following his conviction in the District Court on multiple charges, including burglary and armed robbery. The offences involved the home invasion of elderly complainants, Mr. and Mrs. Brown, who were subjected to a terrifying ordeal by masked intruders. Stinton, who was 19 years old at the time of the offence, was implicated through admissions made by his co-accused and evidence found in the possession of his brother, Barry Stinton. Stinton had a substantial criminal history and pleaded guilty to the charges. The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the sentence imposed by the District Court was manifestly excessive, particularly considering Stinton's plea of guilty and his limited role in the more severe aspects of the crime. The Court considered the gravity of the offences, the impact on the victims, and Stinton's criminal history and prior non-compliance with community orders.

The Court of Appeal found that while the offences were serious, the District Court's sentence did not adequately reflect the mitigating factors of Stinton's guilty plea and his limited involvement in the most severe aspects of the crime. The Court also noted the absence of any physical harm to the victims, despite the significant psychological impact on them. The Court deemed that the sentence should be reduced to reflect these mitigating factors, while still addressing the need for general deterrence and the seriousness of the crime. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal and reduced the sentences for the burglary and armed robbery charges from 10 years to 8 years each. The other sentences were affirmed. The Chief Justice and President concurred with the decision, and the orders were made as proposed by Justice McPherson.

Orders