DPP v Collins (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Cannon, 23 July 2014 (date of sentence))
---
CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal against sentence – Charges of burglary and armed robbery – Different sentences – Parity – Whether there was a disparity between the appellant's sentence and the sentence of a co-accused – Whether disparity gave rise to justifiable sense of grievance – Co-accused sentenced in respect of more offences – Co-accused pleaded guilty earlier, offered to give evidence against appellant, gave evidence against appellant, and sentenced as a young offender – No disparity giving rise to justifiable sense of grievance – Appeal dismissed.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Appellant
Mr H A Rattray
Balmer & Associates
For the Respondent
Mr B F Kissane QC
Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
WHELAN JA
SANTAMARIA JA BEACH JA:
Introduction
On 14 July 2014, the appellant pleaded guilty to charges of armed robbery, burglary, theft and possession of an unregistered general category hand gun. Following a plea hearing on 16 July 2014, the appellant was sentenced on 23 July 2014 as follows:
Possession of unregistered general category handgun [Firearms Act 1996 (Vic) s 7B]
600 penalty units or 7 years (first offence); 1200 penalty units or 10 years (second offence)
6 months
Total Effective Sentence:
5 years
Non-Parole Period:
3 years
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:
81 days
6AAA Statement:
6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment (NPP: 4 years)
On 18 November 2014, Redlich JA granted the appellant leave to appeal against his sentence on the following ground:
The learned sentencing judge erred in her application of the parity/disparity principle in relation to both the total effective sentence and the non-parole period imposed.
The appellant’s parity complaint relates to an earlier sentence imposed upon the appellant’s co-offender, one Turkozu. Turkozu pleaded guilty to the same two charges of burglary and armed robbery to which the appellant pleaded guilty. However, Turkozu was sentenced to be detained in a Youth Justice Centre for three years as part of an aggregate sentence for those two offences and seven other offences, being a further charge of armed robbery, two further charges of burglary, one charge of intentionally causing injury, one charge of reckless conduct placing another person in danger of serious injury,…
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 v The Queen
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Collins v The Queen [2015] VSCA 106
Case
[2015] VSCA 106
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Collins v The Queen concerned the appellant's appeal against the sentence imposed on him following his conviction for burglary and armed robbery. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether there was an unjustifiable disparity in the sentences imposed on the appellant and his co-accused. The co-accused had been sentenced for a greater number of offences, had pleaded guilty earlier, and had offered to give evidence against the appellant. The appellant argued that the disparity in their sentences gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance.
The primary legal issue the court needed to resolve was whether the difference in the sentences imposed on the appellant and his co-accused was unjustifiable. The court had to consider the various factors that contributed to the disparity, including the co-accused's earlier plea of guilty, their offer to give evidence against the appellant, their actual testimony against the appellant, and the fact that the co-accused was sentenced as a young offender. The court also needed to assess whether the disparity was such that it gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance on the part of the appellant.
In delivering the judgment of the court, the justices found that the disparity between the sentences imposed on the appellant and his co-accused was not unjustifiable. The court noted that the co-accused had pleaded guilty earlier, offered to give evidence against the appellant, and had given evidence against the appellant, all of which contributed to the lesser sentence imposed on them. Additionally, the co-accused was sentenced as a young offender, which further explained the disparity. The court concluded that the appellant had not demonstrated that the disparity gave rise to a justifiable sense of grievance.
The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence imposed on the appellant was upheld. The court's decision emphasised the importance of considering the various factors that contribute to the sentencing of co-accused individuals and the need to ensure that any disparity in their sentences is justifiable and not based on arbitrary or unfair considerations.