Legal Research
Cases
Braydon Carrington v The Queen

Braydon Carrington v The Queen

Case [2015] VSCA 175 30 June 2015

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Appeal

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0223

BRAYDON CARRINGTON	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH & SANTAMARIA JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	Determined on the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 June 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 175
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Carrington (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Chettle, 2 April 2014)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Election against refusal of leave to appeal against sentence –Whether total effective sentence and non-parole period are manifestly excessive and reflect a failure to have proper regard to the principle of totality – Whether the order for cumulation produced a sentence that infringed the principle of totality – Aggravated burglary and intentionally cause serious injury – Extremely serious offending – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	No appearances	Melasecca, Kelly & Zayler
For the Crown	No appearances	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA:
SANTAMARIA JA:

On 2 April 2014, at the County Court of Victoria at Geelong, the applicant was arraigned and pleaded guilty to the offences of aggravated burglary and intentionally causing serious injury. On the same day, after a plea in mitigation, he was sentenced as follows:

Charges on Indictment

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1.

Aggravated Burglary

[s 77(1) Crimes Act 1958]

25 years

4 years

2 years

2.

Intentionally Causing Serious Injury

[s 16 Crimes Act 1958]

20 years

5 years

Base

TotalEffective Sentence:

7 years’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period:

4 years

Pre-Sentence detention declaration pursuant to s 18(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991:

1 day

Ground of appeal

The applicant seeks leave to appeal on the following ground of appeal:

The total effective sentence and non-parole period are manifestly excessive and reflect a failure to properly have regard to the principle of totality.

Circumstances of the offending

The applicant was born on 6 January 1994. Before the incident in which his offending occurred, he had been in a relationship for three years with Ms Tamika Foster who resided at Unit 1, 22 Tanner Street, Breakwater. The applicant resided with Foster at that address until their relationship ended in February 2013.

Nicholas Williams was born on 18 February 1991. Williams and Foster had recently commenced a relationship. In the days leading up to the incident, Williams had been staying at Foster's residence.

The applicant and Williams were known to each other; they had lived together as children for a year, approximately eight years ago. They had had no contact since that time.

The following facts gave rise to charge 1: Aggravated Burglary. On Sunday 17 March 2013, Williams was alone at Unit 1, 22 Tanner Street from 10.30am onwards as Foster had gone to work. Williams had asked whether there was any chance of the applicant attending the premises. Foster told him that it was a possibility given that the applicant's car was still parked at her address.

At approximately 3pm, the applicant attended at…

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 Braydon Carrington v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Braydon Carrington v The Queen [2015] VSCA 175
Case: [2015] VSCA 175
Decision Date: 30 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Braydon Carrington v The Queen involved the appellant, who was sentenced for offences of aggravated burglary and intentionally causing serious injury. The appeal was centred on the severity of the sentence imposed, specifically the total effective sentence and the non-parole period, which the appellant contended were manifestly excessive. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the total effective sentence and the non-parole period were manifestly excessive, whether they reflected a failure to properly regard the principle of totality, and whether the order for cumulation produced a sentence that infringed this principle. The court had to consider the principle of totality in sentencing and whether the sentence imposed was proportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed.

In examining the appeal, the court considered the principle of totality in sentencing, which requires that the cumulative effect of multiple sentences not be disproportionately severe. The court assessed the total effective sentence and non-parole period in relation to the nature of the offences, which were described as extremely serious. The court noted the need for a sentence that adequately reflects the culpability and harm caused by the offender. The court ultimately found that the sentence, while severe, was not manifestly excessive and did not infringe the principle of totality. The court rejected the appeal, emphasising the gravity of the crimes and the necessity for a sentence that appropriately reflects the seriousness of the offending.

The court determined that the total effective sentence and the non-parole period were not manifestly excessive, and that the sentence did not fail to have proper regard to the principle of totality. The order for cumulation did not produce a sentence that was disproportionate or violated the principle of totality. The court acknowledged the extremely serious nature of the offences and the need for a sentence that adequately reflects the harm caused and the culpability of the offender. The appeal against the sentence was dismissed, and the court affirmed the appropriateness of the sentence imposed.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence be dismissed and the orders of the Court of Appeal be affirmed. The court confirmed that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offences and did not infringe the principle of totality. The order for cumulation was deemed appropriate in the circumstances. The decision reinforces the importance of balancing the severity of the sentence with the need to reflect the culpability and harm caused by the offender.

Orders