The Queen v Campbell[1997] QCA 314

COURT OF APPEAL

PINCUS JA

McPHERSON JA

de JERSEY J 

CA No 287 of 1997 

THE QUEEN 

v. 

WILLIAM EDWARD CAMPBELLAppellant

BRISBANE

DATE 29/08/97

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA:  Yesterday for reasons that were then explained this Court granted an extension of time within which to appeal against the sentence in this matter.  The effect of the sentence imposed in the District Court at Townsville for the most serous of the three offences charged was imprisonment for four years.

The applicant pleaded guilty to that offence, which was robbery with violence in company, as well as the one count of unlawful use of a motor vehicle and one of housebreaking.  The offences were committed on three different occasions within a period of three months from June to September 1996.

The applicant was arrested on one of the charges on 25 October 1996.  It should be noted that he committed a further offence in December 1996. 

The principal offence was the robbery which was the second of the three offences I have mentioned.  The complainant, a young man of 18 years was working the evening shift at Kentucky Fried Chicken.  After finishing work he waited at the roadside with two of his young co-workers.  One of them was a 14-year-old girl, whose parents were coming to collect her.

A group of 10 youths including the applicant came past.  One of them was carrying a stick.  The applicant stood in front of the complainant while one member of the group began punching the complainant on the side and back of the head.  A demand was made for his wallet and the applicant grabbed it from the complainant's hand.  $40 was removed from it and the empty wallet was thrown on the ground.  This done, the group moved off.  The complainant suffered bruising to the back of the head, cheeks and ear. 

The applicant was 18 years old when he committed the offence, and 19 when sentenced; but apart from these offences he has, in the short time available to him, compiled a considerable criminal record including convictions in 1996 for possession of drugs, three instances of wilful damage, stealing, two of assaulting the police, one assault occasioning bodily harm and two break and enter offences.

He had been granted probation on 5 August 1996 but breached it by committing assaults on 20 December 1996, and no doubt also by his subsequent conviction for these offences.  He was on probation at the time each of the subject offences was committed.

Before this Court the only substantial question is whether the three offences for which he was sentenced in the District Court on 13 May 1996 merited imprisonment for four years, or whether a sentence of that duration should be considered excessive.

My firm impression is that a robbery of this character, where not much physical harm is done to the victim, has in the past generally attracted terms of imprisonment ranging from about 18 months to three years.

The fact that this was a bare-faced street robbery committed against a young man by a crowd of as many as 10 youths or persons must, when taken in conjunction with the other two offences, place it rather at the higher end of the sentencing range.

The complainant was assaulted in somewhat threatening or frightening circumstances; but it must be said that the injuries sustained were not severe.  The applicant pleaded guilty, although he did so only after first denying his involvement and after fingerprints had been examined at the scene of the break and enter and in the vehicle unlawfully used.  As regards the robbery he was identified by means of a photograph from which the complainant recognised the applicant as someone who had been to the same school as he.

The Judge pointed out that, although youthful, the applicant was by no means a first offender and that he had committed the offences when on probation.  He also remarked on the prevalence of two of the types of offences committed, that is, the break and enter and the unlawful use in the area of Townsville.

Allowing for all these matters, as well as the discretionary character of the sentencing process, I am nevertheless persuaded that, for a first term in prison for a comparatively young man, four years is excessive for the three offences involved.  I would allow the application and appeal, and vary the sentence on the robbery charge by reducing it to three years.  I would also add a recommendation that the applicant be considered for parole after he has served 12 months of the sentence referred to.

I should perhaps add that the sentences, which were 18 months and 12 months respectively, to be served for the other two offences should stand.  They are, of course, to be served concurrently with the sentence for the robbery, which I suggest should be varied in the way I have stated it.

PINCUS JA:  I agree.

de JERSEY J:  I also agree.

PINCUS JA:  The order of the Court is application granted, appeal allowed, sentence in respect of the robbery set at three years instead of four years.  Recommendation for parole after 12 months in respect of the sentences.  All sentences to be served concurrently and the other sentences of 18 months and 12 months respectively are confirmed.