and Leo Clayton (a pseudonym)[1] v The Queen - [2016] VSCA 88

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0033
LEO CLAYTON (a pseudonym)[1]	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of a pseudonym in place of the name of the applicant.

---

JUDGES:	BEACH and FERGUSON JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 May 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 May 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 88
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v [Clayton] (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Smith, 28 January 2016)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Young offender – Charges of armed robbery (2), theft (3), obtaining a financial advantage by deception (3), arson (1) and committing an indictable offence while on bail (2) – Sentence of 27 months detention in youth justice centre – Whether sentence of 27 months detention in youth justice centre manifestly excessive – Not arguable that sentence manifestly excessive – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr R Keating	Slink and Keating
For the Respondent	Mr D A Trapnell QC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA

FERGUSON:

Introduction

On 18 January 2016, the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to three charges of theft, three charges of obtaining property by deception, two charges of armed robbery, one charge of arson, two charges of being a learner driver driving without an experienced driver, one charge of failing to stop his vehicle when requested by police and two charges of committing an indictable offence while on bail. Following a plea hearing, on 28 January 2016, the applicant was sentenced as follows:

Charges on Indictment F12769366 Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1.

Theft

[s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958]

10 years

3 months’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre

3 months

2.

Obtain Property by Deception

[s 81(1) of the Crimes Act 1958]

10 years

1 month detention in a Youth Justice Centre

---

3.

Obtain Property by Deception

[s 81(1) of the Crimes Act 1958]

10 years

1 month detention in a Youth Justice Centre

---

4.

Obtain Property by Deception

[s 81(1) of the Crimes Act 1958]

10 years

1 month detention in a Youth Justice Centre

---

5.

Theft

[s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958]

10 years

6 months’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre

3 months

6.

Armed Robbery

[s 75A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958]

25 years

18 months’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre

Base sentence

7.

Armed Robbery

[s 75A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958]

25 years

18 months’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre

---

8.

Arson

[s 197(6) of the Crimes Act 1958]

15 years

12 months’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre

3 months

9.

Theft

[s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958]

10 years

6 months’ detention in a Youth Justice Centre

---

Summary Charge 4.

Learner Driver Drive…

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 Leo Clayton (a pseudonym)[1] 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: [2016] VSCA 88
Decision Date: 6 May 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Leo Clayton (a pseudonym), the appellant, against The Queen, the respondent, the High Court was tasked with considering an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed on the appellant for various criminal offences. The appellant, who was a young offender, was found guilty of multiple charges including armed robbery, theft, obtaining a financial advantage by deception, arson, and committing an indictable offence while on bail. The sentencing court imposed a term of 27 months detention in a youth justice centre. The appellant sought leave to appeal on the ground that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, thereby warranting an appeal. The court considered the appellant's age, the nature and number of the offences committed, the circumstances surrounding the commission of the crimes, and the principle of proportionality in sentencing. The court also took into account the appellant's previous criminal history and the need for the sentence to serve both punitive and rehabilitative purposes.

The High Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court reasoned that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences, the need to protect the community, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court also noted the appellant's young age and the likelihood that the detention would contribute to his rehabilitation. Given these considerations, the court found that the sentence was within the range of reasonable responses and did not constitute an error of law that warranted an appeal. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused.

Orders