The Queen v Howard[1997] QCA 330

COURT OF APPEAL

MACROSSAN CJ

DAVIES JA

de JERSEY J

CA No 225 of 1997 

THE QUEEN 

v. 

APRIL DIANA HOWARD 

BRISBANE

DATE 27/08/97

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The applicant was sentenced to imprisonment for four years for her part in a robbery.  She had driven the actual offender to near the area where the robbery was carried out.

The robbery in fact was an armed robbery but the applicant was not charged with such an offence.  She was charged with robbery with a circumstances of aggravation, actual violence, and she was convicted after a trial of robbery only, that is without a circumstances of aggravation.

The robbery took place at the branch of the ANZ Bank at Yandina.  The applicant's companion, a male person with a bad criminal history, entered the bank armed with a revolver and wearing a balaclava and there stole a sum of money, $8,275 and some cents but his attempt to escape was unsuccessful.  He was apprehended and all of the money was recovered.

In the course of attempting to escape he had in fact assaulted three people but it is more relevant to look at the part which the applicant herself played in all of the events. As I said she drove the car described in some of the submissions to us as "the getaway vehicle."

It was obviously accepted by the jury and the Judge sentenced on the basis that the applicant knew the co-offender was going to commit a robbery when she drove him to the Yandina Shopping Centre.  She waited in a shop nearby. 

She did not give evidence at the trial as a result of which she was found guilty and she was not cooperative when approached by the police in the matter.

She had previous convictions but none of note. She had been convicted of stealing many years before and she had also some minor drug convictions.  However she was of a mature age, that is an age of maturity might be the better way to put it. She was born in November 1961, that meant that she did not have special claims for consideration on account of particular youthfulness.

The Judge when he sentenced made some remarks indicating that he appreciated it was necessary to deter people from committing the sort of offences that were under consideration and necessary particularly to deter persons from helping others who have decided to commit offences of the kind in question.

He gave consideration to all of the circumstances of the case including the limited part that the applicant had played in the robbery.  He considered that the part the applicant had played required that a sentence be imposed which should be served in prison.  He had in mind the desirable goal of the applicant's rehabilitation but he nevertheless said that he had to keep in the mind the need for deterrence and the need to make an appropriate indication of the community's disapproval of offences of this type.

We have in mind in a general way the sentences which are imposed upon persons involved as co-offenders in assisting the carrying out of robberies. 

Our attention has been directed by counsel for the Crown to two particular matters but there is no need to delay over them by any exact analysis of them but I will mention one of them which was referred to in the arguments advanced by counsel for the applicant. That is the matter of Groves CA 113/95, 27 April 1995 where the offender was the driver of a car but the case is distinguishable because amongst other things the offender in that case gave the police information which was of value in leading to the arrest of the co-accused. 

The head sentence imposed in Groves was the same as that here, namely four years, but there was an order for suspension after 12 months.  In this case the Judge has made no special order associated with the term of four years which he ordered be served and he has made no recommendation.

In my opinion, it cannot be said that the Judge failed to take into account relevant factors and similarly it cannot be said that the sentence he imposed was in any way in an excessive range calling for interference and I would refuse the application.

DAVIES JA:  I agree.

de JERSEY J:  I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The application is refused.