Armed robber who attacked good Samaritan denied appeal
The violent armed robber who vehemently attacked a good Samaritan at the Allenstown Hotel in 2019 has had his appeal for a reduced sentence, denied.
Mikael Jai Kampf, who was 35 at the time of the offence, sought to have his sentence from the Rockhampton District Court in 2020 reduced on the grounds it was “manifestly excessive or inadequate”.
The matter was heard at a Brisbane Court on March 9 and the ruling was delivered on March 19.
He was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment for the armed robbery and one month for the stealing.
The grievous bodily harm was declared to be a conviction of a serious violent offence and he was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment.
The serious violent offence declaration means he must serve 80 per cent of the term before he is eligible for parole.
All sentences were ordered to be served concurrently with 96 days’ pre-sentence custody declared.
Kampf applied to appeal the grievous bodily harm sentence, claiming the serious violent offence declaration was “manifestly excessive”.
Kampf alleged the judge “acted upon a wrong principle” and “gave inadequate weight to non-declarable pre-sentence custody”.
Kampf, together with Isaac Stenz and Amy Quinn, entered Dan Murphy’s at Allenstown on July 8, 2019 at 4.23pm where they stole alcohol.
They then entered the Allenstown Hotel next door.
Stenz pulled a gun out and demanded money from a staff member in the pokies area and Kampf acted as a lookout near the entry.
All three then went into the public bar area and Stenz, while armed with the gun, again demanded money.
A hotel patron recognised the gun was a replica and a fight began.
Kampf then struck the patron three times including on the head with a whiskey bottle while he was on his knees.
The patron laid on the floor and bled from the head.
All three fled the scene and caught a taxi and were apprehended by police two hours later.
The patron had to be flown to Brisbane and had extensive injuries including lacerations on his temples, eye bruising, haematoma, skull fractures, haemorrhage and more.
He had surgery to insert burr holes for drainage.
Kampf’s criminal history began in 2002 and included a significant history in property and dangerous drugs and imprisonment on 13 separate occasions.
Judge for the appeal, Acting Justice Anthony Rafter, in the appeal documents defended the original sentencing.
“The sentencing judge had regard to the serious nature of the attack and that the complainant was a vulnerable individual who did not apprehend that he was going to be attacked. He was unable to take any defensive action and the strike while he was on the ground was entirely gratuitous and unnecessary. The sentencing judge was entitled to conclude that there were features of the offending that warranted a declaration that the conviction for grievous bodily harm was a conviction of a serious violent offence. There was no error in the exercise of the sentencing judge’s discretion to make the declaration.”
Acting Justice Rafter continued:
“The sentencing judge made no reference to the applicant’s criminal history when considering the serious violent offence issue. His Honour focused on whether the offence had features warranting the imposition of a sentence that would require the applicant to serve 80 per cent of the term of imprisonment before being eligible for parole.
“The task of sentencing involves taking into account all relevant factors and arriving at a single result. It follows that an offender’s criminal history may be relevant to the exercise of discretion whether or not to declare a conviction for an offence to be a conviction of a serious violent offence.”
Kampf’s leave for appeal against sentence was denied.
“There was no error by the sentencing judge,” Acting Justice Rafter said.
“The sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with a declaration that the conviction was a serious violent offence is not manifestly excessive.
“For the reasons given, the application for leave to appeal against sentence should be refused.”