R v Tilley; Ex Parte - [2002] QCA 144

[2002] QCA 144

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA
WILLIAMS JA
FRYBERG J

CA No 27 of 2002

THE QUEEN

ROHAN MARK TILLEY Respondent

and

ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF QUEENSLAND Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 19/04/2002

JUDGMENT

DAVIES JA: This is an Attorney-General's appeal against an effective sentence of eight years imprisonment with a declaration that the offender was a serious violent offender for four counts of armed robbery, five of armed robbery with personal violence, one of fraud and one of wounding.

A sentence was imposed in the District Court upon the respondent's plea of guilty on 21 December 2001 and the offences were committed between 9 December 2000 and
27 December 2000. At the time of commission of these offences the respondent was 34 years of age and was 35 at the time of sentence.

The respondent has a criminal history which includes a substantial number of minor offences. He has however two convictions which are relevant in different ways to the appropriate sentence in this case. The first is a conviction in South Australia on 8 November 1990 on five counts of rape involving two victims. He was there sentenced to a term of 11 years 11 months. He was apparently legally at large in respect of those offences, and not on parole, at the time of the commission of the subject offences. These offences are relevant because they are his only prior offences involving violence, and for that reason should be taken into account in the consideration of the appropriate sentence.

The other relevant conviction is one on 18 September 2000 in the District Court at Brisbane for offences of receiving property obtained by a crime and attempting to dishonestly obtain property for another in respect to which he was sentenced to two years probation. He had served only three months of that probation when he committed the subject offences.

These offences were, in substance, nine robberies committed over 11 days. They were committed on convenience stores and service stations. On each occasion the respondent was armed with a knife or a screwdriver. On five of them he used personal violence and in one of those the victim was injured when he grabbed the respondent's knife to stop himself being hurt and suffered quite serious injuries to his hand.

On each occasion the respondent's behaviour and language was threatening including, in some cases, the making of death threats. Pre-planning was involved, including obscuring the number plates of the getaway vehicle, wearing a stocking mask and having an accomplice check the target store for the presence of other customers before he robbed it. Two of his offences were committed against the same target store.

Unsurprisingly a number of the complainants, one of whom was 68 years of age, others of whom were quite young, appear to have suffered some psychological damage as a result of the respondent's conduct, although it is unclear how much. No victim impact statements were put before the Court. The robberies in all yielded only a little…

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 Tilley; Ex Parte

Details

AGLC: R v Tilley; Ex Parte [2002] QCA 144
Case: [2002] QCA 144
Decision Date: 19 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case is an appeal by the Attorney-General of Queensland against the sentence imposed on Rohan Mark Tilley for various offences including armed robbery, armed robbery with personal violence, fraud, and wounding. The appeal was against the sentence of eight years imprisonment with a declaration that Tilley was a serious violent offender. The Court of Appeal found that the sentence was manifestly inadequate and allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting a sentence of 10 years imprisonment for each of the armed robberies, with the declaration that the offence is a serious violent offence. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence imposed below was set aside and replaced with a sentence of 10 years imprisonment for each of the armed robberies. The other sentences and declarations imposed by the primary judge were left unchanged. The Court of Appeal considered that the sentence of eight years imprisonment was manifestly inadequate in light of the criminal history of the respondent, the number of serious offences committed over a short period of time, the actual injury inflicted on one occasion, and the fact that the respondent had been placed on probation at the time of the commission of the subject offences. The Court of Appeal found that the case was more comparable to other cases in which sentences of 10 years imprisonment were imposed for similar offences, and that a sentence of 10 years imprisonment for the offences of armed robbery and armed robbery with personal violence was appropriate.

The Court of Appeal considered the mitigating factors relied on by the trial judge in imposing the sentence, including the degree of cooperation with the police and the prospects of rehabilitation. However, the Court of Appeal found that the prospects of rehabilitation were not as optimistic as the trial judge had thought, and that the mitigating factors did not warrant a sentence as low as eight years imprisonment. The Court of Appeal also considered the submissions of the parties in relation to comparable cases and found that the sentence in this case was comparable to sentences in other cases where the offenders had committed serious offences over a short period of time and had a history of violence. The Court of Appeal concluded that a sentence of 10 years imprisonment for the offences of armed robbery and armed robbery with personal violence was appropriate, and allowed the appeal to the extent of substituting this sentence in place of the sentence imposed below. The other sentences and declarations imposed by the primary judge were left unchanged.

Orders