The Queen v Bradford[1997] QCA 391

COURT OF APPEAL

DAVIES JA

LEE J

CULLINANE J

CA No 327 of 1997

THE QUEEN

v.

WARREN JOHN BRADFORD Applicant

BRISBANE

DATE 09/10/97

JUDGMENT

CULLINANE J:  The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a sentence of eight years for armed robbery in company with violence imposed in the District Court at Cairns on 15 August 1997.  The applicant pleaded guilty to the offence.

In the early hours of 27 February 1997, the applicant and another person, a youth who had just turned 15, entered a service station at Cairns.  Both were wearing some cloth over their heads with holes to enable them to see.  Each of them were armed with machetes.  The applicant demanded that the sole attendant present hand over money and threatened to kill him if he did not cooperate or if he looked at him.

Whilst the attendant was kneeling on the ground, placing money from the till into the applicant's pockets, the applicant hit the attendant with the blunt end of the machete.  He struck him a second time with the blunt end of the machete on the head whilst he was kneeling.  A small amount of money and some cigarettes were obtained before they left.  The attendant required treatment for a number of stitches for an injury to the head.  The applicant was intercepted some hours later and was seen at about the time he was intercepted to have been in possession of a machete. 

He has a criminal history which includes a prior conviction for stealing with actual violence whilst armed with an offensive weapon.  He also was convicted of an assault occasioning bodily harm.

The sentencing Judge thought that the range was some eight to 10 years and this proposition was not demurred to by counsel who appeared for the applicant, and to my mind is supported by the cases to which His Honour was referred and to which we have been referred by the respondent.

The applicant makes a number of complaints in a general way.  One is that no recommendation was made for early release on parole but, as will be seen, His Honour struck the head sentence by reference to the factors that had to be taken into account in the applicant's favour and fixed upon a sentence which he regarded as being at the bottom of the range as a result.

It was also suggested that the sentence was not, to use the applicant's words, "backdated".  However, it is plain that His Honour did order the sentence to take effect as from the date that the applicant had been taken into custody. 

I do not think there is any basis upon which the sentence imposed in this case can be regarded as manifestly excessive.  The application is without any merit and I would refuse leave to appeal.

DAVIES JA:  I agree.

LEE J:  I agree.

DAVIES JA:  The application is refused.