Barfoot v The Queen - [2011] VSCA 282

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0104

BRENDAN BARFOOT

THE QUEEN

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and MANDIE JJA and WHELAN AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 September 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT/ORDER:	28 September 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 282
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Barfoot (Unreported County Court of Victoria, Judge Gucciardo 15 April 2010)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Offences of violence – Totality – Discrete offences committed over a short period of time – Cumulation warranted – Sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment for a count of theft of drinks valued at $250 manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr L C Carter	Doogue & O’Brien
For the Respondent	Mr J D McArdle QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA:

The appellant was arraigned in the County Court and pleaded guilty to a presentment containing one count of intentionally causing injury (count 1), one count of attempted armed robbery (count 2), one count of intentionally causing serious injury (count 3), one count of armed robbery (count 4), one count of theft (count 5), one count of reckless conduct endangering persons (count 6) and one count of arson (count 7).

A plea was conducted and the appellant was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of two years on count 1, for a term of four years on count 2, for a term of seven years on count 3, for a term of six years on count 4, for a term of one year on count 5, for a term of three years on count 6 and for a term of three years on count 7. With a measure of cumulation, a total effective sentence of ten years’ imprisonment was imposed upon the appellant and a minimum term of seven years’ imprisonment was fixed before the appellant was to be eligible for parole.

The offences took place over a period of approximately one hour. The appellant and his brother went to a house in Endeavour Hills. The offenders were loud and aggressive and obviously affected by alcohol and, it seems, drugs. The appellant argued with Mark McCullagh and punched McCullagh in the face, causing laceration and bruising. McCullagh ran from the house pursued by the appellant. The appellant caught McCullagh and slammed his head onto a concrete driveway (count 1).

The appellant and his brother went to a nearby street and approached a car occupied by a Mr Lariccia. The offenders threw a brick through the car’s front windscreen, which landed on the passenger seat. The appellant and his brother then tried to forcibly remove Mr Lariccia from the car. They threw objects at the car. Mr Lariccia was able to drive away (count 2).

Mr Wheeler came out of his house after hearing the noises generated by the assault upon Mr Lariccia’s car. He asked the appellant to quieten down and then returned inside. The offending against Mr Lariccia continued and Mr Wheeler went back…

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 Barfoot v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Barfoot v The Queen [2011] VSCA 282
Case: [2011] VSCA 282
Decision Date: 28 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Barfoot v The Queen, the appellant faced sentencing for multiple offences of violence and theft. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the severity of the sentence imposed. The appellant argued that the cumulative sentence was excessive, particularly for the theft of drinks valued at $250, which he claimed should not have warranted a 12-month imprisonment term.

The legal issues before the court involved the principles of sentencing for multiple offences, particularly when those offences are committed over a short period of time. The court was required to determine whether the totality of the sentence was appropriate and whether the sentence for the theft offence was manifestly excessive. The court had to balance the need to address the appellant's criminal behaviour with the proportionality of the sentence imposed for each individual offence.

The High Court held that the sentence for the theft offence was indeed manifestly excessive, given the relatively low value of the stolen goods. The court recognised the need for cumulative sentences to account for the overall criminal conduct but emphasised that proportionality must be maintained for each individual offence. The court also noted the importance of the totality principle, which requires the court to consider the overall sentence in light of all the offences. The High Court found that the 12-month imprisonment term for the theft offence was not justified and ordered a reduction in the sentence.

The final orders of the court included a reduction in the sentence for the theft offence to a term that was deemed more proportionate to the nature and value of the offence. The court did not alter the sentences for the other offences, finding them to be appropriate given the totality of the appellant's criminal conduct.

Orders