SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
S APCR 2015 0080
| ASHLEY GERBING | Applicant |
| v | |
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
S APCR 2015 0087
| BRADLEY ROBERT CROUGHAN | Applicant |
| v | |
| THE QUEEN | Respondent |
---
| JUDGES: | WHELAN and BEACH JJA |
| WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE |
| DATE OF HEARING: | 5 August 2015 |
| DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 12 August 2015 |
| MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2015] VSCA 209 |
| JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM: | DPP v Croughan (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Jordan, 30 March 2015) |
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Applications for leave to appeal – Applicants charged with robbery and armed robbery respectively – Complainant an 18 year old school girl waiting for her bus – Soft target – Applicants with prior criminal histories – General deterrence – Specific deterrence – Application of Verdins principles in respect of one applicant – Totality considerations in respect of other applicant – Not reasonably arguable that robbery sentence of 18 months with non-parole period of 12 months was excessive – Not reasonably arguable that armed robbery sentence of 4 years and 6 months with non-parole period of 3 years was excessive – Errors contended for by applicants not reasonably arguable – Applications for leave to appeal refused.
---
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Applicant, Mr Gerbing | Mr J E McLoughlin | Victoria Legal Aid |
| For the Applicant, Mr Croughan | Mr D N McGlone | Melinda Walker Lawyer |
| For the Respondent | Mr R L Gibson | Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
WHELAN JA:
I agree with Beach JA.
BEACH JA:
Introduction
On 30 May 2013, the applicants, Ashley Gerbing and Bradley Robert Croughan, robbed a schoolgirl who was waiting for a bus to take her to school. On 20 February 2015, Croughan was found guilty by a jury of one charge of armed robbery. He pleaded guilty to the related charge of theft. On 23 March 2015, Gerbing pleaded guilty to a charge of robbery. Following a plea hearing on 23 March 2015, the applicants were sentenced, on 30 March 2015, as follows:
Applicant Gerbing Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation 1 Robbery
[Crimes Act 1958 s 75(1)]
15 years
[Crimes Act 1958 s 75(2)]18 months N/A Total Effective Sentence: 18 months Non-Parole Period: 12 months Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 7 days 6AAA Statement: 2 years 6 months with a non-parole period of 18 months Other orders: Forensic sample order, $450 compensation order
Applicant Croughan Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation 1 Armed robbery [Crimes Act 1958 s 75A(1)] 25 years
[Crimes Act 1958 s 75A(2)]4 years 6 months Concurrent 2 Theft
[Crimes Act 1958 s 74(1)]
10 years
[Crimes Act 1958 s 74(1)]4 years 6 months Concurrent Total Effective Sentence: 4 years 6 months Non-Parole Period: 3 years Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 143 days 6AAA Statement: N/A Other orders: $450 compensation order
Gerbing now seeks leave to appeal against his sentence on the following grounds:
1.The sentencing judge erred in holding that deterrence is the dominant purpose of sentencing for robbery offences.
Continue reading Ashley Gerbing v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Ashley Gerbing v The Queen [2015] VSCA 209
- Case
- [2015] VSCA 209
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issues for the court to address were whether the sentences were so excessive as to warrant leave to appeal and whether any errors contended for by the applicants were reasonably arguable. The court had to consider the principles of general and specific deterrence, as well as the totality principle in the context of sentencing. The court also considered the Verdins principles, specifically in relation to one of the applicants.
The court held that the sentence of 18 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months for the robbery charge was not excessive. Similarly, the sentence of 4 years and 6 months with a non-parole period of 3 years for the armed robbery charge was deemed not excessive. The court found that the applicants' contentions regarding the sentences were not reasonably arguable. Consequently, the applications for leave to appeal were refused. The court's decision was based on a detailed analysis of the sentencing principles and the specific circumstances of the case, affirming the appropriateness of the sentences imposed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.