Aaron Jamie Ball v The Queen - [2014] VSCA 226

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0093

AARON JAMIE BALL	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	NETTLE AP, PRIEST and KYROU JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 September 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 September 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSCA 226
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	The Queen v Ball (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Curtain J, 23 April 2014)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Applicant pleaded guilty to two charges of defensive homicide and one charge of recklessly causing serious injury – Applicant involved in violent incident with three victims – Applicant laboured under serious mental illness – Verdins principle applicable – Whether total effective sentence of 20 years, and non-parole period of 17 years manifestly excessive – Whether trial judge erred in failing to adequately take into account the applicant’s mental state in assessing the gravity of offending – Whether trial judge erred in application of the totality principle – Appeal allowed – Applicant resentenced to a total effective sentence of 17 years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr G A Georgiou SC	Slades and Parsons
For the Crown	Mr R A Elston QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NETTLE AP:

I agree with Priest JA.

PRIEST JA:

Introduction

On 31 October 2013 the applicant, pleaded guilty to two charges of defensive homicide,[1] charges 1 and 2, and to one charge of recklessly causing serious injury, charge 3.[2]
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 9AD. The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 17. The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.

He was sentenced on 23 April 2014 to be imprisoned for 12 years on the first charge; for nine (9) years on the second charge; and for five (5) years on the third charge. Five (5) years of the sentence on the second charge, and three (3) years of the sentence on the third charge, were ordered to be served cumulatively with each other and with the sentence on the first charge. The total effective sentence was thus 20 years’ imprisonment, upon which the judge fixed a non-parole period of 17 years.

Leave to appeal against sentence is sought on three grounds:

1.   The individual sentences, the total effective sentence of 20 years, and the non-parole period of 17 years are manifestly excessive, having regard to the matters in mitigation of penalty.
2.   The sentencing judge erred in failing to have regard to, or have sufficient regard to, the applicant’s mental state in assessing the gravity of his offending.
3.   The sentencing judge failed to apply the principle of totality in cumulating 5 years and 3 years on the base sentence of count 1.

For the reasons that follow, I would grant leave to appeal, allow the appeal

and resentence the applicant.
Circumstances of the offences

At the time that the relevant offences were committed, the applicant, who was…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Aaron Jamie Ball v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Aaron Jamie Ball v The Queen [2014] VSCA 226
Case: [2014] VSCA 226
Decision Date: 16 September 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Aaron Jamie Ball has appealed against his sentence, following his conviction for two charges of defensive homicide and one charge of recklessly causing serious injury. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issues in this appeal revolved around the severity of the sentence imposed by the trial judge, specifically whether the total effective sentence of 20 years and the non-parole period of 17 years were manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court examined whether the trial judge had adequately considered the applicant's serious mental illness when assessing the gravity of the offending and if there had been an error in applying the totality principle.

The High Court found that the trial judge had failed to sufficiently consider the applicant's serious mental illness when assessing the gravity of the offending. This was a critical error, as the condition significantly impacted the applicant's capacity to control his actions. Furthermore, the court held that the trial judge did not adequately apply the Verdins principle, which requires consideration of the offender's personal circumstances, including mental health, in the sentencing process. As a result, the totality principle was misapplied, leading to a sentence that did not reflect the mitigating factors present in this case.

In light of these findings, the appeal was allowed. The High Court resentenced Aaron Jamie Ball to a total effective sentence of 17 years and six months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 years. This decision reflects a more balanced approach, taking into account the applicant’s mental state and the principles of sentencing.

Orders