R v Voysey

[1992] QCA 321

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 321

PINCUS JA
McPHERSON JA

THOMAS J

CA No 145 of 1992

THE QUEEN

v.

STEVEN GAVIN VOYSEY	Applicant
BRISBANE
..DATE 14/08/92 JUDGMENT

1

McPHERSON JA: The applicant, Steven Gavin Voysey, was

convicted of one charge of committing armed robbery, two
charges of unlawful use of a motor vehicle with circumstance
of aggravation and one charge of stealing. The charge of
robbery and one of the charges of unlawful use of a motor
vehicle arose out of events that took place on about 13

October 1991.

On that occasion, the applicant Voysey stole an unlocked motor

vehicle using a screw driver to start it. He drove the
vehicle to collect another young man named Linc Robinson.

They then went on to the Ampol Service Station in Riverhills

Road, Eagleby, where the vehicle was parked. Robinson

remained in the vehicle. The applicant entered the service station shop, leaned over the counter and produced a knife. He demanded money from the attendant, who removed the till

from the cash register and gave it to him. The respondent

then decamped to the motor vehicle, which was driven away by

Robinson, with both of them in it. They were later

apprehended by others and handed over to the police. Of the
total $1,389.70 that was stolen, a sum of $1,091.62 was

recovered.

With respect to the other unlawful use offence, the

circumstances are that on 9 August 1991 the complainant parked

her motor vehicle at the Booval shopping centre. That was at

about 4.30 in the afternoon. When she returned at 8.30 she

2

found the vehicle had been stolen. Entry had been effected by

smashing a quarter glass window, the boot lock had been

damaged and a pram and a baby seat had been stolen. The

applicant's fingerprints were found on the vehicle. The
applicant came before a Judge of the District Court on 10

April 1992. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced that day.

The sentences imposed were: in respect of the armed robbery -

five and a half years' imprisonment with a recommendation for

parole after two years; with respect to the unlawful use

offence, or offences, the sentence was 18 months'

imprisonment; and a further sentence of three months'

imprisonment was imposed in respect of the offence of

stealing.

The application before us is founded essentially on the

complaint that there is a discrepancy or disparity between the
sentences imposed on this applicant, of five and a half years

in respect of the armed robbery, and a sentence of three and a

half years imposed on the co-accused or co-offender Robinson,

in respect of the same armed robbery. As I have mentioned in

the case of this applicant, there was a recommendation for

consideration for parole after serving two years of the
sentence. In the case of Robinson the recommendation was for

consideration after serving 12 months of that sentence.

The complaint about disparity seems to me not to be well

founded. Apart from the obvious consideration that it was the

applicant here who in fact carried out the acts constituting

3

the armed robbery, that is to say, entry of the service

station, the production of the knife, the threat that it

involved and removal of the money from that place, the

evidence suggests that it was also the applicant who was the

planner of the offence, and that Robinson was merely the

driver of the getaway car. In addition, a circumstance the

judge could properly take into account was that the applicant

was undergoing three years probation in respect of an earlier

offence at the time when these offences were committed.

And finally, there is the quite clearly distinguishing

circumstance between the two cases that the co-offender

Robinson had no previous convictions, whereas the applicant in

the present case had a series of previous offences beginning

with one in December 1986 and continuing until December 1991.

The record of his convictions includes several previous

offences of stealing, unlawful use of a motor vehicle,
attempted unlawful use of a motor vehicle, breaking and
entering a club house, and breaking and entering a fruit
store. When all these matters are taken into account,

including the fact that the applicant was undergoing probation

at the time, it seems to me that the distinction made by the
learned sentencing judge between the two offenders was not
only a proper one but one that, if anything, favoured the
applicant in this case rather than the other offender. In all

the circumstances, I would refuse the application for leave to

appeal.

4

PINCUS JA: Having regard to the circumstances affecting the

two offenders, as explained by the presiding judge, it appears

to me to be correct, as His Honour has said, that the

disparity between the two sentences was a proper one. I

therefore agree with the order proposed.

THOMAS J: I agree.

McPHERSON JA: The application for leave to appeal against

sentence is refused.

_____

5