Collins (a pseudonym) v The Queen - [2018] VSCA 131

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0248

CARL COLLINS[1]

THE QUEEN

[1]To ensure that there is no possibility of identification, this judgment has been anonymised by the adoption of pseudonyms in place of the name of the applicant.

---

JUDGES:	OSBORN, WHELAN AND BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	26 April 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 April 2018[2]
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 131
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Collins (Unreported, County Court of Victoria)

[2]This is a revised version of the oral reasons delivered on 26 April 2018. It has been edited to protect the identity of the applicant.

---

SENTENCING – Appeal – Handling stolen goods – Arson – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Whether applicant’s assistance to authorities, guilty plea and prospects of rehabilitation adequately reflected in individual sentences imposed – Appeal allowed – Applicant resentenced.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms E Clark	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr B Sonnett	Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

OSBORN JA:

The applicant is aged 28. On 4 October 2017 he pleaded guilty to one charge of handling stolen goods, one charge of arson and two related summary offences of driving whilst disqualified.

On 2 November 2017 he was sentenced in the County Court as follows:

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Handling stolen goods [Crimes Act 1958 s 88(1)]	15 years’ imprisonment	2 years 6 months	6 months
2	Arson [Crimes Act 1958 s 197(1) & (6)]	15 years’ imprisonment	5 years	Base
Summary Charge 1	Drive whilst disqualified [Road Safety Act 1986 s 30(1)]	First offence: 30 penalty units or 4 months’ imprisonment Subsequent offence: 240 penalty units or 2 years’ imprisonment	1 month	Nil
Summary Charge 4	Drive whilst disqualified	First offence: 30 penalty units or 4 months’ imprisonment Subsequent offence: 240 penalty units or 2 years’ imprisonment	1 month	Nil
Total Effective Sentence:		5 years 6 months’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:		2 years 6 months
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		281 days
6AAA Statement:		Not declared

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against sentence on the following grounds:

1.The individual sentences, total effective sentence, and non-parole period are each manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case.
Particulars
(a)The weight said to be given by the learned sentencing judge to the applicant’s assistance to authorities is not reflected in the individual sentences imposed.
(b)The weight said to be given by the learned sentencing judge to the applicant’s plea of guilty is not reflected in the individual sentences imposed.
(c)The weight said to be given by the learned sentencing judge to the applicant’s prospects for rehabilitation is not reflected in the individual sentences imposed.
(d)The sentences imposed are not consistent with current sentencing practices.

2.The non-parole period imposed offends against s 5(2AA) Sentencing Act 1991 in that it is disproportionately short.

For the reasons which follow I would grant leave to appeal and allow the appeal. I…

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 Collins (a pseudonym) v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Collins (a Pseudonym) v The Queen [2018] VSCA 131
Case: [2018] VSCA 131
Decision Date: 26 April 2018[2]

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Collins, whose identity is protected under a pseudonym, and the Crown, represented by The Queen. The dispute centred on the sentencing of Collins, who was convicted of handling stolen goods and arson. Collins appealed against his sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether Collins's assistance to authorities, guilty plea, and prospects of rehabilitation were adequately reflected in the individual sentences.

The court examined the circumstances of the crimes and the sentencing principles that should apply. It considered the nature and gravity of the offences, Collins's cooperation with the authorities, his guilty plea, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court found that while the offences were serious, the sentence was disproportionate given the mitigating factors. The court also noted that the individual sentences did not sufficiently account for Collins's cooperation and prospects of rehabilitation. As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted for resentencing.

In light of the findings, the High Court ordered that Collins be resentenced by the lower court. The court emphasised that the resentencing should appropriately reflect the mitigating factors identified during the appeal. The final orders were that the appeal be allowed, and the case be remitted for resentencing, with specific instructions to consider Collins's assistance to authorities, his guilty plea, and his prospects of rehabilitation in the new sentencing determination.

Orders