R v Tupe - [1996] QCA 509

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL	[1996] QCA 509
SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

C.A. No. 421 of 1996

Brisbane

[R. v. Tupe]

THE QUEEN

SIONE HALU TUPE

(Applicant)
Thomas J Dowsett J White J

Judgment delivered 10 December 1996

Judgment of the Court

1.Application for leave to appeal against sentence granted.
2.Appeal against sentence allowed.

3.Sentences imposed below in respect of the appellant's convictions for armed robbery in

company with personal violence (count 3) and for robbery with personal violence
(count 5) be set aside.

4.In lieu the appellant be sentenced on each count to imprisonment for six years with a recommendation that the appellant be considered eligible for release on parole after serving two years.

5.Pre-sentence custody direction undisturbed.

CATCHWORDS:

CRIMINAL LAW - SENTENCE - 19 year old offender - armed robbery in company with personal violence and robbery with personal violence - whether sentence manifestly excessive.

R v. Hammond CA No 445 of 1996; R v. Lawrence CA No 13 of 1992; R v. Teufel CA No

306 of 1993; R v. Donohoe CA No 270 of 1992.

Counsel:	Mr D. Rangiah for the Appellant Mr D. Bullock for the Respondent
Solicitors:	Legal Aid Office for the Appellant Director of Public Prosecutions for the Respondent

Hearing Date: 15 November 1996

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Judgment delivered 10 December 1996

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed in the District Court with respect to ten offences committed in a four-week period. The offences, their dates of commission and the sentence imposed were as follows:

1	28 November 1995	Robbery	5 years
2	28 November 1995	Attempted stealing	6 months
3	3 December 1995	Armed robbery in company with personal violence	7 years
4	4 December 1995	Unlawful use of a motor vehicle	1 year
5	7 December 1995	Robbery with personal violence	8 years
6	7 December 1995	Wilful damage in the night time	2 years
7	16 December 1995	Break, enter and steal	2 years
8	23 December 1995	Wilful damage in the night time	2 years
9	23 December 1995	Break and enter with intent	2 years
10	23 December 1995	Arson	5 years

The applicant was eighteen years old when he committed these offences and was nineteen at the time of sentence. He had only a relatively minor criminal history consisting of unlicensed driving and driving under the influence (and a consequential breach of a fine option order on those matters); an assault occasioning bodily harm committed a few days before the offences with which we are concerned, which was not regarded as sufficiently serious to warrant the recording of a conviction; and a breach of the Bail Act for failing to appear on that charge on 8 December 1995.

Obviously the total criminality of his conduct will impact upon the appropriate level of the operative sentences. The sentences the subject of the present appeal are the sentence of seven years in respect of the third offence, and eight years in respect of the…

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 Tupe

Details

AGLC: R v Tupe [1996] QCA 509
Case: [1996] QCA 509
Decision Date: 10/12/1996

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Tupe involved a young offender who had been convicted of armed robbery in company with personal violence and robbery with personal violence. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed on the defendant was manifestly excessive. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the sentence was proportionate to the crimes committed, and whether it took into account all relevant mitigating factors. The court also considered whether the sentence could be justified in light of similar cases where offenders had received varying sentences for comparable offences. The appeal hinged on the principles of sentencing proportionality and the need to ensure consistency in sentencing across similar cases.

In its judgment, the court carefully reviewed the circumstances of the crime, the defendant's age, and his prior criminal history. It examined the sentencing principles outlined in previous cases such as R v. Hammond, R v. Lawrence, R v. Teufel, and R v. Donohoe. The court found that while the crimes were serious, the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive when compared to the precedents set by the aforementioned cases. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate and appropriately reflected the seriousness of the offences.

The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence. The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence be dismissed, and the original sentence be upheld.

Orders