Adrian Stapleton v The Queen - [2020] VSCA 147

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2019 0155

ADRIAN STAPLETON	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 June 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 June 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 147
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Stapleton (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Morrish, 4 February 2019)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Aggravated burglary – Intentionally causing injury – Theft – Intentionally damaging property – Assault – Total effective sentence of 3 years and 7 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 2 years – Guilty plea – Offending occurred in context of breakdown in domestic relationship – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Effect of concession by prosecutor on plea that combined term of imprisonment and community correction order open to the sentencing judge – Whether sentence imposed so disparate from prosecutor’s concession as to bespeak manifest excess – Whether sentencing judge erred in according little weight to remorse – No error by sentencing judge – Sentence within range – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant:	Mr H A Rattray with Ms J McGarvie	Sarah Pratt & Associates
For the Respondent:	Mr J Lewis	Mr A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
WEINBERG JA:

On 22 June 2018, the applicant, Adrian Stapleton, pleaded guilty in the County Court, at Geelong, to a series of offences committed in August 2016 against his wife of 20 years. They had separated in September 2015, and were living separately and apart.

For reasons that are not presently relevant, there had been lengthy delays between the applicant’s arrest and his plea hearing, which did not take place until November 2018 and January 2019.

On 4 February 2019, he was sentenced as follows:

Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Aggravated burglary [s 77 — Crimes Act1958] 25 years 3 years Base

2 Intentionally causing injury [s 18 — Crimes Act1958] 10 years 18 months 6 months

3 Intentionally damaging property [s 197(1) — Crimes Act1958] 10 years 1 month —

4 Theft [s 74(1) — Crimes Act1958] 10 years 1 month —

Related summary offence

Summary charge 5 Unlawful assault [s 23 — Summary Offences Act1966] 3 months 2 months 1 month

Total effective sentence: 3 years and 7 months’ imprisonment

Non-parole period: 2 years

Pre-sentence detention declared: 74 days

Section 6AAA statement 4 years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 2 years and 8 8 months.

Ancillary orders

· Forensic sample order pursuant to s 464ZF(2) of the Crimes Act1958.

· Alcohol exclusion order imposed for 2 years under s 89DD of the Sentencing Act1991.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence upon the following ground:

The sentence is manifestly excessive.
Particulars:
(a)The individual sentences imposed on charges 1, 2 and 5 are manifestly excessive.
(b)The learned sentencing judge placed excessive…

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 Adrian Stapleton v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Adrian Stapleton v The Queen [2020] VSCA 147
Case: [2020] VSCA 147
Decision Date: 4 June 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Adrian Stapleton has appealed against his conviction and sentence for aggravated burglary, theft, and assault, which occurred in the context of a breakdown in his domestic relationship. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to consider whether the sentence of 3 years and 7 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 2 years, was manifestly excessive.

The court considered the legal issues regarding the appropriate range of sentencing for Stapleton’s offences and the effect of the prosecutor's concession on the plea. The appeal hinged on whether the sentence imposed was so disparate from the prosecutor's concession as to indicate manifest excess and whether the sentencing judge erred in giving little weight to Stapleton's remorse. The court examined the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the offences, the plea of guilty, and the circumstances surrounding the offences. The High Court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in determining the appropriate sentence, as it was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the crimes committed.

The High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had not erred in assessing the appropriate weight to be given to Stapleton’s remorse. The court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the sentence was appropriate given the totality of the circumstances. The leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal was ultimately dismissed, confirming the original sentence.

Orders