Court of Appeal (Qld)|1996-02-23|Before: Helman J, Pincus JA, Pherson JA

The applicant Meier pleaded guilty to one count of entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence therein, one count of armed robbery in company, and three counts of unlawfully using motor vehicles. The offences of entering a dwelling house and armed robbery were committed on 15 August 1995 at the Gold Coast. The dwelling house was that of Mr Anthony Ernest Grainger and the things stolen were Mr Grainger's stereo system, a watch, and a wallet. The weapons were a piece of wood and a knife. The persons in whose company Meier was were Daniel Hiki, David Stawicki and David Dudley Van Hoek. The first offence of unlawfully using a motor vehicle was committed on or about 15 August 1995 at the Gold Coast. There was a circumstance of aggravation: using the motor vehicle for the purpose of facilitating the commission of an indictable offence. The second offence of unlawfully using a motor vehicle was committed between 14 and 17 August 1995 at the Gold Coast, and the third on 26 October 1995 at Mermaid Beach. In the third case of unlawfully using a motor vehicle, there was a circumstance of aggravation: wilfully damaging the mechanism of the motor vehicle.

The applicant Stawicki pleaded guilty to entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence therein, one count of armed robbery in company, and one count of unlawfully using a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation. The particulars of the charges of entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence therein and armed robbery were, in essence, the same as those alleged against Meier. The particulars of the count of unlawfully using a motor vehicle were the same as those in the first such count alleged against Meier.

His Honour sentenced Meier to imprisonment for three years for entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence therein, to imprisonment for five years for armed robbery in company, to imprisonment for two years for unlawful use of a motor vehicle without a circumstance of aggravation, and to imprisonment for three years for each offence of unlawful use of a motor vehicle with a circumstance of aggravation. He recommended that she be considered for parole at the expiration of 18 months of the sentence for armed robbery.

His Honour sentenced Stawicki to imprisonment for three years for entering a dwelling house with intent to commit an indictable offence therein, to imprisonment for five years for armed robbery in company, and to imprisonment for 12 months for unlawfully using a motor vehicle. His Honour recommended that Stawicki be considered for parole at the expiration of 12 months of each of the first two sentences.

Meier, a former prostitute, Stawicki and the others devised a plan to steal cannabis from Mr Grainger, a pensioner aged 32 years who was known to Meier. Mr Grainger suffered from impaired vision in both eyes and brain damage caused in a motor vehicle accident. His disabilities were known to Meier before the attack on him.

Meier went to Mr Grainger's flat at about 7 p.m. on 15 August 1995. He let her in and they had a conversation for about five minutes after which there was a knock at the door and Stawicki, Van Hoek and Hiki entered the flat. With them they brought a piece of wood and a knife. Mr Grainger was assaulted and threatened. Van Hoek menaced him with a knife holding it at various times to his throat, chest, and stomach. Hiki hit Mr Grainger with the piece of wood a number of times. Van Hoek and Hiki threatened to kill him. The intruders then left taking the property I have referred to. Meier left before the others.

Mr Grainger was treated in the Gold Coast Hospital for injuries which included a laceration and bruising.

The last offence of unlawful use of a motor vehicle to which Meier pleaded guilty was committed soon after her release from custody on 24 October 1995. She took the vehicle in Tweed Heads and then returned to Queensland intending to pick up her child and then leave Queensland. The other offences of unlawful use of motor vehicles were committed soon before and soon after the robbery.

Meier was born on 11 April 1975 and so was 20 years old when the offences were committed. She is the mother of an infant child. At the time of the robbery she was the de facto spouse of Van Hoek. Her mother was a drug addict and her father was an alcoholic. Prior to the commission of these offences she had been convicted of a number of offences: shop lifting (in New Zealand), and prostitution offences, drug offences, and stealing (all in Queensland).

Stawicki was born on 2 October 1974 and so was also 20 years old when the offences were committed. He was single and unemployed. He is a talented athlete, a champion sprinter. He had been previously convicted of unlawful assault.

His Honour took into account the youth of both applicants, the fact that they cooperated with the investigating police officers, and their early pleas of guilty. His Honour also accepted that neither used a weapon, but observed that violence was an almost inevitable consequence of the plan. He sentenced them on the basis that they were parties to an enterprise involving the use of weapons by others. His Honour took the view that the deterrent aspect of punishment was important in this case, particularly as Mr Grainger was disabled and was the victim of a cowardly attack by the four.

One of the important purposes for which a sentence may be imposed on an offender is, as section 9(1)(d) of the Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 provides, to make it clear that the community, acting through the court, does not approve of the sort of conduct in which the offender was involved. That is a particularly important purpose to bear in mind in a case like this, in which a vicious attack was made on a disabled man. In my view, His Honour gave full weight to the mitigating factors urged upon us, as is demonstrated by his recommendations for early consideration for parole.

All things considered I should dismiss the applications.

R v Stawicki & Meier [1996] QCA 51 (23 February 1996)

R v Stawicki & Meier [1996] QCA 51

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (13 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (2)

R v Stawicki & Meier [1996] QCA 51 (23 February 1996)