R v Wilton

[1992] QCA 253

COURT OF APPEAL [1992] QCA 253

PINCUS JA
MOYNIHAN J

AMBROSE J

CA No 151 of 1992

THE QUEEN

v.

JASON WILTON	Appellant
BRISBANE ..DATE 15/07/92
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT THE PRESIDENT: Mr Justice Lee will deliver the first judgment in Wilton.

LEE J: The appellant seeks leave to appeal against sentences imposed following his convictions before a District Court judge on 24 April 1992 on nine counts of armed robbery in company, two counts of armed robbery, and nine counts of unlawful use of motor vehicles with circumstances of aggravation. He was sentenced to 15 years imprisonment on each of the armed robbery charges and 7 years imprisonment on each of the charges relating to unlawful use of motor vehicles. The sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with each other and with other sentences he was then serving. o recommendation was made for early parole.

The maximum sentence authorised by section 411 of the Criminal Code with respect to armed robbery is life, and the maximum sentence provided for by section 408A for unlawful use of motor vehicles with circumstances of aggravation is 10 years.

The 11 armed robberies were committed in the space of 21 days between 20 November 1991 and 10 December 1991 in company with a number of other juvenile offenders. The applicant was the oldest, but was said not to have been the ringleader. The robberies were of six banks, two post offices, a newsagent, and two stores, netting in total a sum of about #37,000, none of which has been recovered.

Nine motor vehicles were unlawfully used in connection with these offences. They were stolen from public places for use as getaway cars. In some cases two motor vehicles were taken to allow a quick changeover in getaway cars. All of the vehicles were damages, and some had items of property stolen from them. Extremely dangerous loaded weapons were employed, including a loaded pump action shotgun, sawn off rifles, and other firearms and a knife. Threats were made to persons going about their lawful activities, and these included threats to kill.

It is evident that a degree of criminal professionalism was involved in the planning and execution of these robberies. The applicant was on parole at the time of the commission of these offences, having been released from prison about one month earlier. The sentencing judge referred to the fact that the applicant was on parole, and also to his extensive previous criminal history, which appears in the record.

The applicant was born on 15 May 1972, which means he was 19 years of age when the offences were committed. His criminal history commenced in 1987, when he was convicted on two counts of attempted stealing and malicious injury. Thereafter he has been convicted each year on numerous charges of dishonesty, including unlawful use of motor vehicles, break, enter and stealing, wilful damage, wilful destruction of property, further stealing charges, escape from lawful custody and taking part in a riot.

It was submitted on his behalf that, notwithstanding this history, he had no previous convictions for
robbery or for offences involving violence to the person. Whilst this is strictly correct, the history
shows many serious charges relating to property of others. There were 25 charges of unlawful use
of motor vehicles.
In his favour, when he was apprehended by the police, he made full admissions concerning his
involvement in the offences, and voluntarily admitted his involvement in two other armed robberies
of which the police had no evidence. He told police he had spent the money on drugs. He pleaded
guilty, and thus saved the expense and inconvenience of a trial.

As indicated he was 19 years of age at the date of the offences. He had a serious heroin addiction since aged 14. He left home because of this. He has had three children from different relationships, but is not supporting them. It appears that he was not the ringleader of the group involved in these offences, and that his co-offenders were committing offences before he became involved.

It was submitted on his behalf that the sentencing judge placed insufficient weight upon the above factors, which were in his favour, so that the sentences were manifestly excessive. It was also submitted that the sentencing judge should have made a recommendation for early parole, in view of his co-operation with the police and his plea of guilty.

Various sentences were referred to by both counsel. It was conceded that a term of imprisonment in this case should be very substantial. The range seems to be, from the authorities, 7 ½ to 20 years. It cannot be said that the head sentence of 15 years imprisonment was manifestly excessive, particularly having regard to the decision of this Court in The Queen v. Orchard and O’Sullivan, No. 9 and No. 10 of 1992, delivered 15 May 1992.

However, in view of the special circumstances of the case, and notwithstanding the helpful submissions of counsel for the respondent, I am of the view that some recognition should be given for the appellant’s co-operation with the police, his voluntary admissions which led to his convictions on two other charges, and his plea of guilty. In my opinion there should be a recommendation that he be considered for parole after serving 6 years.

Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted. I order that the sentence be varied by adding that the applicant be considered for parole after serving 6 years.

THE PRESIDENT: I agree. In my opinion the sentencing judge’s discretion miscarried when he failed to give effect to the early plea of guilty and the other circumstances to which reference has been made by Mr Justice Lee. In making a recommendation for early parole I agree with the orders proposed.

DAVIES JA: I agree.

THE PRESIDENT: The order of the Court is as has been indicated.

- - - - - - - -