Cook v The Queen

Case [2011] VSCA 187


SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2009 0834

LUKE MARK COOK   Appellant
v
THE QUEEN Respondent

---

JUDGES BONGIORNO JA and KING AJA
WHERE HELD MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING 12 May 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT 13 May 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION [2011] VSCA 187
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM R v Cook (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Hogan, 16 September 2009)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence appeal – Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of intentionally causing serious injury and one count of criminal damage – Offences were committed while appellant was on parole – Sentenced to total effective sentence of 8 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 5 years – Whether sentencing judge failed to properly apply principle of totality – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – R v Renzella [1997] 2 VR 88 – R v Piacentino (2007) 15 VR 501 – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 16(3B), 18(1) – Appeal allowed – Appellant re-sentenced.

---

Appearances: Counsel Solicitors
For the Appellant Mr P Tiwana James Dowlsey and Associates
For the Crown

Mr S Cooper

Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

THE COURT:

  1. On 2 September 2009, the appellant pleaded guilty before Judge Hogan in the County Court to one count of intentionally causing serious injury and one count of criminal damage.  The intentionally causing serious injury count related to an incident in which the appellant stabbed another man with a kitchen knife multiple times, inflicting life-threatening injuries.  One of the stab wounds involved penetration of the pericardial sac, perilously close to the victim’s heart.  The criminal damage count related to the appellant smashing the rear window of the victim’s motor vehicle.

  1. At the time of his offending, the appellant was on parole for property and driving offences, a drug offence and the offence of threatening to inflict serious injury.

  1. On 16 September 2009, the appellant was sentenced as follows:

Count

Sentence

Cumulation

1

8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment

Base sentence

2

9 months’ imprisonment

3 months

Total effective sentence

8 years and 9 months’ imprisonment

Non-parole period

5 years

  1. The appellant was arrested for these offences on 9 November 2008.  On 10 December 2008, the Parole Board cancelled his parole, with the consequence that he was required to serve the unexpired portion of his parole period as a term of imprisonment.  His parole period expired on 8 August 2009.  There were thus two periods prior to the date of sentence during which the appellant was in custody for the offences in respect of which he was ultimately sentenced and no other offences. The first period was between 9 November 2008 and 10 December 2008 and the second period was between 9 August 2009 and 16 September 2009. Accordingly, by virtue of s 18(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, he was entitled to a declaration that he had served a total of 70 days as pre-sentence detention.  He was not entitled to such a declaration in respect of any of the…

Continue reading Cook v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Cook v The Queen [2011] VSCA 187
Case
[2011] VSCA 187
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Cook v The Queen, the appellant, Cook, appealed against the sentences imposed by the County Court of Victoria. Cook had pleaded guilty to one count of intentionally causing serious injury and one count of criminal damage. The sentencing judge determined that the offences were committed while Cook was on parole and subsequently sentenced him to a total effective sentence of 8 years and 9 months' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years. The primary legal issues in this appeal were whether the sentencing judge failed to properly apply the principle of totality and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal examined the principle of totality, which is the requirement to consider the cumulative effect of multiple sentences. The Court considered the principles established in R v Renzella and R v Piacentino, which emphasise the importance of ensuring that the total sentence reflects the overall seriousness of the offending. Additionally, the Court referred to the Sentencing Act 1991, particularly sections 16(3B) and 18(1), which mandate that the total sentence should be proportionate to the gravity of the offences. After a thorough analysis, the Court determined that the sentencing judge did not adequately apply the principle of totality and that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and re-sentenced Cook. The Court set aside the original sentences and imposed a new total effective sentence of 8 years and 3 months' imprisonment for Count 1 and 6 months' imprisonment for Count 2. The non-parole period was fixed at 4 years and 9 months. The Court confirmed all other orders made by the County Court.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appeal is allowed.

2. The sentences passed below are set aside and in lieu thereof the appellant is sentenced as follows: Count 1 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment Count 2 6 months’ imprisonment The total effective sentence is thus 8 years and 3 months’ imprisonment.

3. A non-parole period of 4 years and 9 months is fixed.

4. All other orders made below are confirmed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

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.