|
(DENNIS
JONES |
APPELLANT |
BETWEEN |
(
(AND
( |
|
|
(THE
QUEEN |
RESPONDENT
|
Court
of Appeal
Criminal Appeal No. 5 of 1987
16th June, 1987
SIR JAMES A. SMITH P.
SIR ALBERT L. STAINE J.A.
KENNETH ST. L. HENRY J.A.
Court
of Appeal - Appeal against conviction for Burglary and aggravated
assault - Whether decision unreasonable and not supported
by evidence - Ample evidence in support of charges - No
merit in appeal - Sentences although severe were not ecessive
- Appeal dismissed.
J
U D G M E N T
The Appellant
Dennis Jones was found guilty of the offences of burglary
and aggravated assault in that he entered the building known
as Gush and Emery Construction Materials Store at night and
stole a large number of articles from the shop valued at $3,029.10
Bze. and later the same day assaulted P.C Fitzroy Goldson
with an ice pick.
Jones
has appealed against his conviction on each of these offences
and he also seeks leave to appeal against the sentences of
6 years and one year respectively to run concurrently.
There
was abundant evidence called by the prosecution to prove these
offences; the Appellant himself said nothing in his own defence
and did not call any witnesses. The jury returned unanimous
verdicts of guilty in respect of each offence. The Appellant
has complained those decisions were unreasonable and not supported
by the evidence. There was, as already stated ample evidence
called in support of the charges which the jury clearly believed.
Accordingly we find no merit in the appeal against these conviction
The Appellant
although, only 22 years old, has a long criminal record. The
sentences imposed totalled six years imprisonment. When imposing
sentence the learned Chief Justice held that a very long sentence
was not called for and commented that the Appellant lost a
leg during this incident which makes it unlikely that he will
embark on similar crimes in the future. We endorse the views
of the Chief Justice and consider the concurrent sentences
although severe were not excessive. Leave to appeal against
sentence is therefore refused.
The appeal
against conviction is dismissed.
----------OO----------
|