Cooper v The Queen - [2013] VSCA 153

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0063
S APCR 2012 0064

ROY COOPER
	Appellant
V
THE QUEEN
	Respondent

---

JUDGES	HARPER, PRIEST and COGHLAN JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	23 March 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	21 June 2013

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION

[2013] VSCA 153

1^st revision 30 July 2013, pages 5 and 6, table

JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM

R v Cooper (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Wood, 23 February 2012)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal against conviction — Two counts of blackmail and five counts of stalking — Whether history of prior convictions wrongly admitted — Whether trial judge erred in directing the jury how to use the prior criminal history — Whether post offence conduct wrongly admitted — Appeal dismissed

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Total effective sentence of 8 years 9 months’ imprisonment — Non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months — Whether sentence imposed was manifestly excessive — Appeal dismissed

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P A Chadwick SC with Mr A L Hands	Slades & Parsons
For the Crown	Mr O P Holdenson QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HARPER JA:

I have had the benefit of reading in draft the judgments of Priest and Coghlan JJA. I am in agreement with both.

PRIEST JA

Introduction

It has been to my considerable advantage to have read in draft the reasons of Coghlan JA. Substantially for the reasons his Honour gives, I agree that the appeals against conviction and against sentence should be dismissed. I wish only to add a few observations of my own concerning the second ground of appeal against conviction relevant to the first trial.

No substantial miscarriage of justice from absence of a propensity warning

On the first trial, the appellant was convicted of stalking and blackmail involving John Silcot (charges 1 and 2); stalking and blackmail against Estelle Kingshott (charges 3 and 4); and stalking with respect to Marcus Venier (charge 5).

Ground 2 complains that the prosecution was permitted, over objection, to lead evidence of the appellant’s prior criminal history ‘without direction as to the use that could and could not be made of it’, and thus for the jury to reason impermissibly on the basis of the appellant’s ‘criminal proclivities’.

Silcot and Kingshott had been prosecution witnesses against the appellant with respect to a prosecution for insurance fraud. The appellant pleaded guilty in June 2003 and was imprisoned for four and a half years (4½) with a non-parole period of three (3) years. Feeling aggrieved by their part in his imprisonment, upon his release from gaol the appellant enlisted the help of his son, Stephan Cooper, to blackmail Silcot and Kingshott. Stephan Cooper gave evidence for the prosecution at trial that the appellant instructed him to recover $100,000 for each year that the

appellant had spent in custody as a result of the actions of Silcot and Kingshott. The appellant’s stated intention was to stalk Kingshott’s son,…

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 Cooper v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Cooper v The Queen [2013] VSCA 153
Case: [2013] VSCA 153
Decision Date: 21 June 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Cooper v The Queen, the appellant was convicted on two counts of blackmail and five counts of stalking. The appellant brought an appeal against both conviction and sentence. The appeal to the High Court of Australia was against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The primary legal issues the court was tasked with were whether the history of prior convictions was wrongly admitted, whether the trial judge erred in directing the jury on the use of the prior criminal history, and whether post-offence conduct was wrongly admitted. Additionally, the appeal challenged the severity of the sentence imposed, arguing it was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the admissibility of the appellant's prior criminal history, finding that its admission was not erroneous as it was relevant to the character and propensity of the appellant. The court also considered the trial judge's direction to the jury, concluding that the direction was accurate and appropriate. Regarding the post-offence conduct, the court found no misstep in its admission as it was pertinent to the appellant's state of mind and intent. The court was satisfied that the trial judge had correctly balanced the probative value of the evidence against any potential prejudice. As for the sentence, the court found that the total effective sentence of 8 years and 9 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months, was not manifestly excessive, considering the nature and circumstances of the offences.

Consequently, the appeal against both conviction and sentence was dismissed by the court. The reasoning provided by the court underscored the importance of considering the totality of the evidence in criminal trials, ensuring that the jury's decision-making process is properly guided and that all relevant factors are taken into account. The severity of the sentence was deemed appropriate given the appellant's criminal history and the nature of the offences. The final orders of the court were to affirm the decisions of the lower courts, upholding the conviction and the sentence imposed.

Orders