R v Robinson [1995] QCA 131

Court of Appeal (Qld)|1995-03-24|Before: Pincus J, MacRossan CJ, Byrne J

The applicant is now 24 and he was 23 years of age when he committed these offences. He has a record for similar offences. In January 1990 he was convicted in Victoria of four burglaries and four charges of theft. That produced a community based order lasting 12 months, but during that period of 12 months the applicant committed more burglaries and thefts and was sentenced to terms of imprisonment.

In September 1990 he was convicted, again in Victoria, of offences described as aggravated burglary, intentionally causing serious injury, burglary (two charges) and was sentenced to eight years imprisonment. In February 1993 he was sentenced to eight months concurrent imprisonment in respect of various charges including theft. There were also other lesser offences.

The applicant had been in pre-sentence custody for 210 days and that period was by judge's order taken to be imprisonment already served. On behalf of the applicant below it was said that he had an unfortunate childhood, that his father introduced him to heroin addiction and to the practice of committing offences to get money to buy heroin.

Having been brought up in Victoria, he came to Queensland in the hope of making a new start. He found work as a labourer, but was unable to obtain payment from the employer. He met with a young woman who was a heroin addict and that worsened the applicant's addiction.

It is said that at the time of his arrest in respect of the subject offences he had placed himself on a methadone program.

The principal reason why the primary judge recommended parole after two and a half years was that His Honour thought that was justified because of the applicant's cooperation with the police. It was stated below that of the 43 residences broken into there were 23 in respect of which the police had no information connecting the applicant with the relevant offences. The charges in relation to those depended on information supplied by the applicant. That certainly goes in his favour, but on the other hand, the history of the applicant's contact with the police is not wholly creditable to him. In March 1994 the police searched the applicant's residence in relation to a house at Hamilton, which had been broken into by him. He denied the offence and refused an interview. The next day the police spoke to him again and he admitted having committed two further offences. He was arrested and granted bail, but while on bail committed numerous further offences.

The applicant says that both the head sentence and non-parole period are too long. The principal difficulty, in my view, is the applicant's record. In the last five years when not in gaol he seems to have occupied much of his time, at least intermittently, committing offences of the present kind. He assures the Court that he has hopes of mending his ways and urges us in effect to reduce the two and a half year non-parole period to enable him to set about his new course of life as early as possible.

It is to be hoped that the applicant's intention to defeat his addiction and try to earn an honest living can be fulfilled, but it is difficult to see that there is any sound ground for interfering with either the head sentence or the non-parole period. It is true that the applicant's youth and the extent of his cooperation with the police gave him a claim to leniency which might perhaps have been reflected in a shorter head sentence than was imposed, but I am of the view that, as was submitted on behalf of the Crown, the Judge's sentencing discretion did not miscarry and the sentences were within the appropriate range. I would dismiss the application.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (9 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)