The Queen v Faulkner[1997] QCA 181

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA

MOYNIHAN J

de JERSEY J

CA No 113 of 1997

THE QUEEN

v.

JOHN LINDEN FAULKNER

BRISBANE

DATE 30/05/97

JUDGMENT

MOYNIHAN J:  The applicant was sentenced on four counts of armed robbery to nine years imprisonment on each with a recommendation of eligibility for consideration for parole after three and a half years.

He seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.  In doing so he points to two particular cases which were put before the Judge below and submits that they are worse cases than his.  In some aspects they are, in other aspects they are not and, indeed, that can be said of most cases. 

It is also clear that in one of the cases there was an adjustment to preserve an appropriate relationship between the sentences of two co-accused which might be thought of as having skewed the sentence so effecting its comparability.

There are, of course, unfortunately, a large number of sentences for offences of the kind in which the applicant engaged, a schedule of those is attached to the Crown Prosecutor's submissions.  In my view the sentence was in range for the reasons that I will mention in a moment.

The applicant was keen to have placed on the record that he disputed making threats in obscene terms and that that was not pointed out below.  That is noted, but in the event makes no difference to the outcome of this appeal.

The applicant has a criminal history commencing in 1986 of property offences of various kinds and for drug offences.  Presumably his activities which led to his convictions that bring us here arose out of the necessity to support a drug habit.

The robberies took place over a spread of time.  They were of a video store where there was a lone female attendant when he entered wearing a mask and pointed a firearm at her.  A couple of days later he went to a cinema where there were some staff in attendance, two of them, again, young women.  He had a firearm; he pointed it at them and he demanded - and obtained the takings from the ticket booth.

The next robbery about eight days later was, again, a video store.  He was wearing a mask.  He produced a firearm and perpetrated the robbery.  Five days after that he repeated the modus operandi at a cafe where he demanded money.  He was observed on that occasion by a bystander and police were called and after a pursuit the applicant was apprehended.

So they are, in my view, serious cases of robbery involving a firearm.  There is a strong need for a deterrent effect in sentences of this kind, particularly when people who engage in the activities such as this applicant did, move to softer and softer targets.  In other words as places like banks and building societies lift their security measures, people move to find softer targets which are much easier to rob; that is really what happened here.  It was a factor adverted to below and it seems to me to be a serious consideration.

For the reasons that I have mentioned in my view the application for leave to appeal against sentence, the sentences should be refused.

McPHERSON JA:  Yes, I agree.  Far from being unduly severe, the sentence for these four armed robberies considered along with the recommendation for parole was, in my view, a generous one.  I would refuse the application for leave to appeal.

de JERSEY J:  I agree.

McPHERSON JA:  The application for leave to appeal against sentence is refused.  I hope we do not need to see you again.