Caddy v The King

Case [2025] VSCA 87

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL
S EAPCR 2023 0215
KOREY CADDY Appellant
v
THE KING Respondent

---

JUDGES: TAYLOR and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD: Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING: 26 March 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 1 May 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2025] VSCA 87
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM: DPP v Korey Caddy & Brent Caddy (County Court of Victoria, Judge Hassan, 27 October 2023)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Co‑offender – Pleaded guilty to 40 offences – Whether judge erred by providing insufficient reasons for sentence – No error – Ground not established – Appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Co-offender – Multiple offences including arson, theft, burglary, reckless conduct endangering persons and dangerous driving while pursued by police – Total effective sentence 8 years’ imprisonment – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Rampage of ongoing criminal conduct – Serious offender – Offending committed whilst on CCO – Extensive prior criminal history – No underlying sentencing error – Sentence within range and moderate – Appeal dismissed.

---

Counsel
Appellant: Mr J Barrera
Respondent: Mr L McAuliffe

Solicitors
Appellant: Stary Norton Halphen
Respondent: Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

TAYLOR JA

T FORREST JA:

  1. The appellant was granted leave to appeal against a sentence imposed in the County Court on 27 October 2023. He pleaded guilty to 38 indictable offences and two summary offences. The majority of the offending was grouped together by the sentencing judge into individual categories for the purposes of imposing a number of aggregate sentences. This was an efficient way to deal with the appellant’s quite prolific offending.

  2. The details of the sentences imposed are set out in the table below:

Charge

Offence

Maximum penalty

Sentence

Cumulation

Indictment C2114743

1

Theft[1]

10 years’ imprisonment

3 years’ imprisonment (aggregate)

Base

2

Burglary[2]

10 years’ imprisonment

3

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

4

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

5

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

6

Burglary

10 years’ imprisonment

7

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

8

Arson[3]

15 years’ imprisonment

1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment

6 months

9

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

1 year imprisonment (aggregate)

3 months

10

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

11

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

12

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

13

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment (aggregate)

6 months

14

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

15

Damaging property[4]

10 years’ imprisonment

16

Arson

15 years’ imprisonment

1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment

6 months

17

Burglary

10 years’ imprisonment

3 years’ imprisonment (aggregate on charges 17–‍21, 23, 24)

9 months

18

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

19

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

20

Burglary

10 years’ imprisonment

21

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

22

Arson

15 years’ imprisonment

1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment

6 months

23

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

See charges 17–21

See charges 17–21

24

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

25

Damaging property

10 years’ imprisonment

2 years 10 months’ imprisonment (aggregate)

9 months

26

Burglary

10 years’ imprisonment

27

Theft

10 years’ imprisonment

28

Burglary

10 years’ imprisonment

Continue reading Caddy v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Caddy v The King [2025] VSCA 87
Case
[2025] VSCA 87
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Korey Caddy, appealed against his sentence for a series of offences committed over a little more than two months. The offences included arson, theft, burglary, reckless conduct endangering persons, and dangerous driving while pursued by police. The appellant pleaded guilty to a total of 40 offences, and his co-offender, Brent Caddy, was also involved in the criminal activities. The appellant's total effective sentence was 8 years’ imprisonment, which he claimed was manifestly excessive. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or if there was an underlying sentencing error.

The court considered the nature and extent of the offending, which included a rampage of ongoing criminal conduct. The court noted that the appellant was a serious offender who committed these offences while on a Community Corrections Order (CCO) and had an extensive prior criminal history. The court found that the sentence was within the range and was moderate given the circumstances of the case. The court concluded that there was no underlying sentencing error and dismissed the appeal.

The court further held that the appellant's claim that the judge provided insufficient reasons for the sentence was also without merit. The court found that the judge provided adequate reasons for the sentence, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offending, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The court held that the appellant had not established that the judge erred in providing the reasons for the sentence.

The final orders of the court were to dismiss both the appeal against the sentence and the appeal against the reasons for the sentence. The appellant's sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment was upheld, and the reasons provided by the judge for the sentence were affirmed. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and within the range for the offending committed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

The Prosecution opening on plea[11] was tendered on the plea. It is a complex document that sets out the relevant offending of both the appellant and his brother, Brent Caddy, who were co‑offenders for much of the offending. We shall reproduce relevant portions of that document:[11]Dated 27 June 2023.BackgroundThe accused in this matter,(1)Brent CADDY, was born 1st March 1988.(2)Korey CADDY, was born 8th July 1989.(3)Between 9th May 2021 and 26th July 2021, Korey CADDY and Brent CADDY together with unknown co‑accused committed a series of burglaries and thefts, both at residential and commercial properties, with some of the thefts including motor vehicles which were then used to break into other buildings.(4)Three of the stolen motor vehicles were set alight and destroyed by the accused.(5)On a number of occasions, force was used to gain entry to the premises which resulted in damage being caused to the building. It has been agreed as between the parties that rather than there being separate charges for the damage caused to the various buildings, the damage caused by the entry by force is an aggravating feature of the relevant burglary charges. In total, there were 40 charges against the appellant said to have occurred over a little more than two months. The prosecution grouped these charges into six series and the facts are summarised below. On 9, 16 and 22 May 2021, the appellant and co‑offender were captured on CCTV driving and storing a stolen Ford Laser (charge 1). The car had been stolen from Epsom without keys, was unregistered and the registration plates had been removed. On 22 May 2021 at 3:36 am, the appellant and co‑offender drove the stolen vehicle to Weeroona Secondary College where they forced entry into a shed, broke a padlock bolt, searched the place and then left empty handed (charge 2). At 4:12 am on the same day, they stole a 2006 Holden Commodore from Cathcarts Smash Repairs in California Gully, locating the keys under a car mat (charge 3). Between 8:00 am on 21 May 2021 and 11:40 pm on 22 May 2021, the appellant and co‑offender went to Bendigo East where they stole a 2006 Mazda Bravo Utility without a key (charge 4). At 11:50 pm on 22 May 2021, the stolen Mazda Bravo and Ford Laser were driven in convoy to Ultra Tune in Kangaroo Flat. The appellant and co‑offender located and loaded a large industrial air compressor, valued at $5,000 into the Mazda Bravo. This air compressor was taken to the co‑offender’s house (charge 5). At 4:00 am on 23 May 2021, the stolen Mazda Bravo and Ford Laser arrived in convoy at Abbott Supply in Golden Square. The Mazda Bravo was used to ram the external gates and reverse into the shop’s roller door, causing damage valued at $9,138.17. Two multipacks of Milwaukee power tools, valued at $3,500, were stolen by an offender wearing all dark clothing (charges 6–‍7). These stolen power tools were subsequently located at the appellant’s residence. The appellant burnt the Mazda Bravo in Huntly (charge 8).

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.