Battye v The King - [2025] VSCA 89

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2025 0018

LIAM BATTYE	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 April 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 89
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Battye (County Court of Victoria, Judge Chettle, 6 December 2024)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Aggravated burglary (1 charge), intentionally causing injury (2 charges) – TES of 4 years and 6 months, with NPP of 3 years – Manifest excess – Whether sentences or TES or NPP manifestly excessive – Whether NPP manifestly excessive as a proportion of TES – Complaints of manifest excess not reasonably arguable – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr C Pearson
Respondent:		Mr L Andrews
Solicitors
Applicant:	George Vassis
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA:

On 4 December 2024, the applicant pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated burglary, two charges of intentionally causing injury, one charge of possessing a drug of dependence, and the related summary offence of committing an indictable offence while on bail. On 6 December 2024, he was sentenced as follows:

Charge

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1

Aggravated burglary (contrary to s 77 of the Crimes Act 1958)

25 years

3 years

Base

2

Intentionally causing injury (contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1958)

10 years

2 years

9 months

3

Intentionally causing injury

10 years

2 years

9 months

4

Possessing a drug of dependence (contrary to s 73(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981)

1 year[1]

$300 fine

–

8

Committing an indictable offence while on bail (contrary to s 30B of the Bail Act 1977)

3 months

1 month

–

Total Effective Sentence:

4 years and 6 months

Non-parole period:

3 years

Pre-sentence detention:

Nil

Section 6AAA statement:

7 years with a non-parole period of 5 years

[1]Drugs, Poisons and Controlled substances Act 1981, s 73(1)(b).

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his sentence. His proposed grounds of appeal are as follows:
1.The individual sentences of imprisonment imposed, together with the orders made for cumulation and the total effective term of imprisonment so produced, are each manifestly excessive.
2.The non-parole period ordered to be served, as a proportion of the total effective term of imprisonment, is manifestly excessive.

Circumstances of the offending

The offending constituting charges 1, 2 and 3 (the charge of aggravated burglary and the two charges of intentionally causing injury) occurred in the early hours of 10 December 2022 at premises in Wandong. The premises consisted of a house and a ‘mancave’ which was a separate dwelling from the house.
On the evening of 9 December 2022, into the early hours of 10 December 2022, there was a gathering in the mancave. The gathering included a female friend of the applicant, JM, and a resident of the premises, KG.…

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 Battye v The King

Details

AGLC: Battye v The King [2025] VSCA 89
Case: [2025] VSCA 89
Decision Date: 30 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Battye v The King, the applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence for convictions of aggravated burglary, and two counts of intentionally causing injury. The applicant was sentenced to a total effective sentence of 4 years and 6 months, with a non-parole period of 3 years. The applicant argued that the total effective sentence, and the non-parole period, were manifestly excessive. The primary judge considered the arguments and dismissed the application for leave to appeal.

The court was required to determine whether the total effective sentence or the non-parole period was manifestly excessive, and whether the non-parole period was manifestly excessive as a proportion of the total effective sentence. The court also had to assess whether the applicant's complaints of manifest excess were reasonably arguable. In assessing the application, the court considered the seriousness of the offending, the need for deterrence and denunciation, and the principles of parity and proportionality.

The court found that the total effective sentence and non-parole period were not manifestly excessive, and that the non-parole period was not manifestly excessive as a proportion of the total effective sentence. The court also held that the applicant's complaints of manifest excess were not reasonably arguable. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made.

Orders