Caig v The Queen - [2011] VSCA 359

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0171

GRAEME IAIN CAIG
	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WARREN CJ and HANSEN JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	14 November 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 November 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 359
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	(Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Murphy, 4 May 2010)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Burglary (21 counts) – Theft (31 counts) – Other offences – Total value of property stolen $654,000 – Guilty plea – Deliberate targeting of industrial premises did not lessen moral culpability or reduce need for general deterrence – Whether proper weight given to appellant’s admissions – Individual sentences of 27 months and 24 months on two rolled up counts not manifestly excessive – Cumulation orders open – Total effective sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of four years and nine months not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr C B Boyce	Tyler Tipping and Woods
For the Respondent	Mr D A Trapnell SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HANSEN JA:

Graeme Iain Caig (‘the appellant’) pleaded guilty in the County Court to 21 counts of burglary, 31 counts of theft, one count of obtaining property by deception, one count of possessing a drug of dependence, one count of possessing a Schedule 4 poison, and one count of being a prohibited person in possession of a registered firearm. Following a plea in mitigation, he was sentenced on 4 May 2010 as follows:

Count on Presentment

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

Value of Property Stolen

1.     Burglary [s 76 of the Crimes Act 1958] 10 years 15 months 2 months

2.     Theft [s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958] 10 years 6 months $9,251

3.     Theft [s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958] 10 years 27 months BASE $159,600

4.     Theft [s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958] 10 years 24 months 6 months $110,000

5.     Burglary [s 76 of the Crimes Act 1958] 10 years 15 months 2 months

6.     Theft [s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958] 10 years 9 months $36,000

7.     Theft [s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958] 10 years 3 months 1 month $2,897

8.     Obtaining property by deception [s 81 of the Crimes Act 1958] 10 years 6 months 2 months

9.     Burglary [s 76 of the Crimes Act 1958] 10 years 15 months 2 months

10. Theft [s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958] 10 years 6 months $6,140

11. Burglary [s 76 of the Crimes Act 1958] 10 years 15 months 2 months

12. Theft [s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958] 10 years 6 months $8,000

13. Prohibited person in possession of a registered firearm [s 5 of the Firearms Act 1996] 10 years 6 months

14. Possession of a Drug of Dependence [s 73…

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 Caig v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Caig v The Queen [2011] VSCA 359
Case: [2011] VSCA 359
Decision Date: 14 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Caig v The Queen, the appellant faced 21 counts of burglary, 31 counts of theft, and other associated offences. The total value of property stolen was $654,000. The appellant pleaded guilty to all charges. The primary dispute in the case was whether the sentences imposed were excessive given the appellant's admissions and the nature of the crimes. The case was heard and determined in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentences imposed were manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge had properly considered the appellant’s admissions and the need for general deterrence. Additionally, the court examined whether the cumulative effect of the sentences imposed was justified. The appellant argued that his deliberate targeting of industrial premises lessened his moral culpability and that the sentences should reflect this.

The High Court found that the trial judge had properly considered the appellant's admissions and the need for general deterrence. The court held that the individual sentences of 27 months and 24 months for the two rolled-up counts were not manifestly excessive. The court also determined that the cumulative effect of the sentences, resulting in a total effective sentence of seven years and six months with a non-parole period of four years and nine months, was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed as there was no point of principle involved in the case.

No specific orders were made beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The High Court’s decision confirmed that the trial judge's assessment of the sentences was appropriate and aligned with the principles of criminal sentencing in Australia.

Orders