The Queen v Maslen[1998] QCA 198

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ

DEMACK J

HELMAN J

CA No 89 of 1998

THE QUEEN

v.

PETER ROBERT MASLEN

BRISBANE

DATE 18/06/98

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The applicant was sentenced to two years' imprisonment with a recommendation for parole after nine months for his role in an armed robbery which involved a deprivation of liberty. He was then 17 years old. Three other men were involved, Drews and Sant, each a year older than the applicant, and another man called Allen. They were wearing disguises. 

The applicant, Drews and Allen, entered a newsagency at half past five in the morning surprising the attendant at the rear who had been delivering papers. Drews threatened the attendant with a sawn-off rifle, Allen was carrying a knife, the applicant was carrying some other object. They ordered the attendant to open the safe, which he was unable to do. They stole some cigarettes, nevertheless. They ultimately commanded the attendant to take them away from the scene in his van. He drove some distance away and stopped the vehicle and then they decamped. Sant had driven them to the newsagency but did not go inside. He had driven them for the purpose of the commission of this offence. The attendant suffered substantially emotionally, as described in a victim impact statement, and still suffers, not surprisingly.

Now, later on the same day, Sant and Drews and Allen carried out a second robbery, this time of a convenience store. Sant, again, drove, and Drews and Allen entered the store with a rifle and a knife. They confronted the occupants, a family, stole some cash, locked the family in the bathroom and ransacked the house.

The learned Judge sentenced the 17-year-old applicant, who had no previous criminal convictions, as I have said, to two years' imprisonment with parole recommended after nine months for the armed robbery, which is the only offence with which we need trouble. Allen, I might say, has absconded and has not been located.

Drews was 18 years old with no prior convictions. He committed the two robberies of course and was sentenced to four years with a recommendation for parole after 16 months.

Sant also was 18 years old and with one other conviction for attempted stealing which attracted a fine. He drove the car in each case and did not enter the premises but was party to the plan. He received a two and a half year sentence with parole recommended after 10 months.

The applicant contends through Mr Hunter that the sentence imposed upon him lacks appropriate parity with the sentence imposed on Sant bearing in mind that Sant committed two robberies, had a prior conviction and was a year older.

Counsel submitted that a sentence on the applicant of 18 months imprisonment with a recommendation after six months would have been more appropriate.

The learned Judge referred to all of the relevant circumstances and to my mind apparently carefully adjusted the sentences to allow for the comparative roles of the perpetrators. As I have said the applicant received a two year sentence with parole after nine months. Sant received two and a half years with parole after 10 months. Although Sant committed the two robberies his role was substantially confined to driving the vehicle and participating in the planning.

In the robbery the applicant actively and threateningly participated within the newsagency and in the removal of the attendant from the scene. Even allowing for Sant being a year older and having committed more than one robbery and having one other previous conviction the differentiation made with apparent care by the sentencing Judge did in my view distinguish appropriately between their respective positions.

There can be no question by the way that a sentence of two years imprisonment with parole recommended after nine months was for this offence within range even for a 17 year old with no prior convictions.

I would refuse the application.

DEMACK J:  I agree.

HELMAN J:  I agree.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE:  The application is refused.