and Jason Tregenza v The Queen - [2015] VSCA 163

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0186
JASON TREGENZA	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH, WEINBERG and OSBORN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	2 June 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 June 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 163
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Tregenza (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Sexton, 18 February 2014 (Conviction), 7 March 2014 (Sentence))

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against conviction and sentence for intentionally causing serious injury – Whether applicant participated in assault – No solid obstacle to guilty verdict – No error in directions to jury – No error in sentence – Principle of parity engaged by reduction in co-offender’s sentence on appeal in separate proceeding – Whether necessary to maintain relativity between co-offenders as fixed by sentencing judge – Appeal allowed – Applicant re-sentenced to six years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and three months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M Thomas	Grigor Lawyers
For the Crown	Ms D I Peikusis	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA

WEINBERG JA
OSBORN JA:

Following a 12 day trial, the applicant and Christine Picone (‘Picone’) were convicted on one charge of intentionally causing serious injury.[1] The Crown case was that the applicant and Picone, together with Picone’s son, M (‘M’), were acting in concert in assaulting the victim, Douglas Farquhar. Alternatively, the applicant was said to have aided and abetted the Picones.
[1]The co-accused, Christine Picone, was convicted of 1 count of intentionally causing serious injury and was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 6 years 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years 6 months in the County Court. On 4 September 2014 Picone was granted leave to appeal against sentence by Weinberg JA on the ground that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. On 5 February 2015 the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and re-sentenced Picone to 5 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years. M was dealt with in the Children’s Court.

Following a plea hearing conducted on 21 February and 3 March 2014 the applicant was sentenced on 7 March 2014 as follows:

Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Intentionally causing serious injury
[Crimes Act 1958 s 16] 20 years [Crimes Act 1958 s 16] 7 years -

Total Effective Sentence: 7 years

Non-Parole Period: 5 years

Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 15 days

6AAA Statement: N/A

Other relevant orders: § Forensic Sample Order
Appeal against conviction

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against his conviction on the following grounds:

(a) the verdict is unsafe and unsatisfactory;
(b)the learned trial judge failed to direct the jury as to the evidence of Rachel Lincoln that she had been threatened following giving evidence at the committal in circumstances where the jury may have erroneously believed that the applicant had threatened her;
(c)the learned trial judge failed to adequately direct the jury in relation to…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read and Jason Tregenza v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] VSCA 163
Decision Date: 25 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Jason Tregenza, appeals against his conviction and sentence for intentionally causing serious injury, with the case reaching the court. The dispute centres on whether the appellant participated in an assault that resulted in significant harm to the victim. The case was heard and determined by the relevant court of appeal in Australia.

The primary legal issues that the court needed to resolve included whether there was any substantial obstacle to the appellant's conviction based on the evidence presented, if the jury was correctly directed in understanding the legal principles applicable to the case, and whether the sentence imposed was appropriate. The court also had to consider the principle of parity in sentencing, particularly in light of a co-offender's sentence being reduced on appeal in a separate proceeding.

In examining the evidence, the court found no significant impediment to the appellant's conviction. The jury was properly guided on the legal standards relevant to the case, and the sentence was deemed appropriate under the circumstances. The principle of parity necessitated a review of the sentence in relation to the co-offender's reduced sentence. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, adjusting the appellant's sentence to six years and six months imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and three months.

The final orders of the court reflect the adjustments made to the appellant's sentence, ensuring alignment with the principle of parity in relation to the co-offender's sentence.

Orders