Legal Research
Cases
Beevers v The Queen

Beevers v The Queen

Case [2016] VSCA 271 17 November 2016

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2015 0257

ROSLYN BEEVERS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and SANTAMARIA JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 September 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 November 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 271
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Beevers (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Taft, 20 November 2015)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Appeal — Arson and attempting to obtain property by deception — Intended insurance fraud — Procedural fairness — Applicant relied in mitigation on childhood abuse — Error by judge in rejecting submission on abuse without warning of his intention to do so — Leave to appeal granted — Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr O P Holdenson QC	Lewenberg & Lewenberg
For the Crown	Ms D I Piekusis	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
SANTAMARIA JA:

Introduction

Following a trial, on 22 June 2015, a jury empanelled in the County Court found the applicant, Roslyn Beevers, guilty of arson[1] (charge 1). The applicant also pleaded guilty to two charges of attempting to obtain property by deception[2] (charges 2 and 3).
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 197(3). The maximum penalty is 15 years’ imprisonment.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, ss 321M and 81(1). The maximum penalty is 5 years’ imprisonment.

On 20 November 2015, the trial judge imposed an aggregate sentence of four years and four months’ imprisonment on the three charges, and fixed a non-parole period of two years and four months.

The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence on the following ground:

The learned sentencing judge erred in failing to alert Counsel for the Applicant that he was considering rejecting the psychological evidence relating to childhood sexual abuse thereby denying the Applicant procedural fairness.

Pragmatically (and fairly) the respondent conceded that the complaint embodied in the ground of appeal — a denial of procedural fairness — was made out, and that leave to appeal should be granted. The respondent submitted, however, that despite error having been established, the appeal should be dismissed, since the Court ought to be satisfied that no different sentence should be imposed.[3]
[3]Criminal Procedure Act 2009, ss 281(1)(b) and (2).

In our view, the respondent’s submissions should be accepted.

Factual background

On 26 May 2012, an historic homestead, ‘Hopkins Hill’, built in 1854 and situated in Allansford, a town in the Western District, was destroyed by fire. The homestead had been built in 1854. Following the fire the applicant and her co‑accused, Robert Conn, attempted a fraudulent insurance claim for the house, its contents and a motor vehicle.

In essence, the prosecution case was that Robert Bucay, an associate of Conn’s, deliberately lit the fire, the arson having been orchestrated by Conn and the applicant.

At a separate trial, Bucay was acquitted of arson.

Conn pleaded guilty to arson; two charges of attempting to obtain property by deception; perjury; two charges of handling stolen goods; and…

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 Beevers v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Beevers v The Queen [2016] VSCA 271
Case: [2016] VSCA 271
Decision Date: 17 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Beevers, appealed against his sentence imposed for arson and attempting to obtain property by deception, which was part of an intended insurance fraud. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge's failure to warn the applicant about his intention to reject the mitigation submission regarding the applicant's childhood abuse constituted a procedural error that warranted the appeal to be allowed.

The court held that the trial judge's omission to provide a warning before rejecting the mitigation evidence was a procedural error. The judge was required to give the applicant an opportunity to address the submission on the childhood abuse to ensure a fair trial. However, the court found that this error did not lead to a miscarriage of justice or an unjust outcome, and therefore, the appeal was dismissed. The court reasoned that the trial judge's overall consideration of the case and the sentence imposed was not influenced by the procedural error.

The High Court held that the trial judge's procedural error did not affect the fairness of the trial or the sentence imposed on the applicant. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence remained in place. The court acknowledged the importance of procedural fairness in criminal trials but determined that in this case, the error did not impact the outcome.

Orders