R v Thornton - [1999] QCA 78

99.78

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA DAVIES JA THOMAS JA

CA No 422 of 1998
THE QUEEN
v.

KARL MATHEW THORNTON

Applicant

BRISBANE
..DATE 18/03/99
180399 D.1 T10/LE9 M/T COA52/99
DAVIES JA: The applicant was sentenced in the District
Court on 22 October last on the plea of guilty on one
count of armed robbery in company, one of entering
premises with intent, one of deprivation of liberty,
three of wilful damage and two of breaking and entering
premises and committing an indictable offence therein.

He was sentenced to five years imprisonment for the first of those offences, two years imprisonment for the second, two years imprisonment for the third, three months imprisonment for each of the counts of wilful damage and two years imprisonment on each of the counts of breaking and entering and committing an indictable offence. All sentences were concurrent.

The learned sentencing Judge concluded that 236 days already spent in custody be time served under the sentences.

The principal offences and some of the subsidiary
offences were committed on the night of 26 February
1998. The applicant and his two co-offenders entered a
Red Rooster Store at Labrador on the Gold Coast after it

had closed. Three staff members were cleaning the store.

The offenders were all armed, the applicant carried a
machete, one of his co-offenders carried a crowbar and
the other a replica pistol. Each was masked and wore
dark clothing.
180399 D.1 T10/LE9 M/T COA52/99
To enter the store they broke a lock on the rear gate
and opened the screen door. Once inside they tied up
one of the staff members, a young boy of only 14, and
ordered the female assistant manager to open the safe.

After some difficulty she did so and $800 was taken from the safe. She was also then bound up. A number of personal items were also taken, these included cash transaction cards and an engagement ring valued at $2,500.

The offenders then left. They were soon apprehended because someone had taken the number of the car in which they escaped. This was traced to the applicant. The police searched the applicant's residence and found clothing and weapons consistent with those used in the robbery. They also found property which the applicant had stolen during the commission of the two break and enter offences referred to earlier. He told the police in respect of each of those that he had smashed a window to enter premises and disabled an alarm system. The property stolen in each case was worth over $8,500.

The applicant in this Court today for the first time
says that he did not steal that property, that he was
not the thief but a receiver of the goods and that he
told the police he was the thief because he did not want
to get the owner of the house into trouble.
180399 D.1 T10/LE9 M/T COA52/99
That is an inherently incredible story and in any event
in my view we should disregard…

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 Thornton

Details

AGLC: R v Thornton [1999] QCA 78
Case: [1999] QCA 78
Decision Date: 18/03/1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of Queensland, the case of R v Thornton involved Karl Mathew Thornton, who was convicted of various offences including armed robbery, deprivation of liberty, wilful damage, and breaking and entering premises. Thornton was sentenced to various terms of imprisonment, all of which were to run concurrently, and he was granted credit for 236 days already spent in custody. Thornton appealed against his sentence, arguing that it was excessive and that there was a disparity in the sentencing compared to his co-offenders. The appeal was heard by Pincus JA, Davies JA, and Thomas JA.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence imposed was within the range of a sound discretionary judgment, and whether there was a disparity in sentencing between Thornton and his co-offenders. The court also considered Thornton's plea of guilty and his extensive criminal history, which included multiple convictions for dishonesty and other offences. The court had to determine if the sentence was appropriate given the nature of the crimes, the impact on the victims, and Thornton's criminal history.

The court found that the sentence imposed was within the range of a sound discretionary judgment, taking into account the nature and seriousness of the crimes, the impact on the victims, and Thornton's criminal history. The court noted that the armed robbery was premeditated and involved weapons, and that general deterrence was an important factor. The court also highlighted that two of the victims continued to suffer psychological problems due to the robbery. Regarding the disparity in sentencing, the court found that there were significant differences between Thornton and his co-offenders, particularly in their criminal histories and cooperation with the police. The court was not persuaded that the sentence was excessive or outside the range of a sound discretionary judgment.

The Court of Appeal dismissed Thornton's appeal against his sentence, agreeing with the sentencing judge's assessment. The judges concluded that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case, and that there was no disparity in sentencing that warranted a reduction in Thornton's sentence. The order of the Court was that the application be refused.

Orders