R v X - [2001] QCA 498

[2001] QCA 498

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P
McPHERSON JA
MACKENZIE J

CA No 187 of 2001

THE QUEEN

Appellant

BRISBANE

..DATE 09/11/2001

JUDGMENT

THE PRESIDENT: In the District Court at Brisbane the applicant pleaded guilty to four counts of armed robbery and two counts of attempted armed robbery. The offences occurred between January and July 1998.

He was later sentenced to eight years' imprisonment for the armed robbery offences and seven years' imprisonment for the attempted armed robbery offences.

The applicant, who represents himself on this appeal, claims the sentences were manifestly excessive. He emphasises that insufficient weight was given to his co-operation with the authorities and to the effect of the death of his mother which, he says, triggered his fall back into drug use and committing these offences whilst on parole.

He was 31 or 32 years old at the time of the offences and is now 35 years old. He had a significant prior criminal history which included a conviction for breaking and entering a dwelling house in 1984 for which he was sentenced to 18 months' probation. He was next convicted and fined $100.00 for unlawful use of a motor vehicle in 1985.

More significantly, later in 1985, he was convicted of armed robbery in company, unlawful use of a motor vehicle for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an indictable offence and other less serious offences, and was sentenced to an effective term of six years' imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after 16 months.
In 1989 he was convicted of a further count of breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment. Later that year he was convicted of receiving and false pretences and was sentenced to a short period of community service.

In 1991, he was convicted of receiving, stealing and a breach of the Bail Act and was sentenced to an effective term of four months' imprisonment. Later that year his community service order was breached and he was sentenced to one month's imprisonment. Of even more significance is his conviction in 1991 on two counts of robbery and breaking and entering a dwelling house with intent for which he was sentenced to seven and a half years' imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after two and a half years.

In 1993 he was convicted and sentenced to three months' imprisonment for unlawful assault of a prisoner. In 1995 he was convicted and sentenced to three months' cumulative imprisonment for being unlawfully at large.

The offences, for this Court's consideration which I have already noted, were committed whilst he was on parole are as follows.

On 14 January 1998 at 5.15 p.m. he robbed a female shop assistant at a Coorparoo food store whilst armed with a hand gun, taking $1,000.00 cash and a packet of cigarettes. He was effectively disguised by a cap, sunglasses and a bandanna covering his mouth and nose. He volunteered his involvement in this offence on 22…

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 X

Details

AGLC: R v X [2001] QCA 498
Case: [2001] QCA 498
Decision Date: 09/11/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of The Queen v X, the appellant appealed against the sentences imposed by the District Court at Brisbane, contending that the sentences were manifestly excessive. The appellant had pleaded guilty to four counts of armed robbery and two counts of attempted armed robbery. The appellant argued that insufficient weight was given to his cooperation with authorities and to the impact of the death of his mother, which triggered his relapse into drug use and subsequent offending while on parole.

The primary legal issue for the Court of Appeal was whether the sentences imposed by the District Court were manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant's cooperation with authorities and the effect of his mother's death. The court considered the appellant's extensive criminal history, the seriousness of the current offences, and the impact on the victims. The court found that the sentence imposed by the District Court adequately recognised the mitigating factors, such as the appellant's guilty plea and cooperation with authorities, and was not manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal held that there is no fixed formula for calculating a discount for a plea of guilty or cooperation with the police. The court found that the sentence imposed by the District Court was appropriate and proper in all the circumstances, taking into account the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offences. The court concluded that the appellant's application for leave to appeal should be refused.

Orders