Legal Research
Cases
Cottee v The Queen

Cottee v The Queen

Case [2010] VSCA 285 22 October 2010

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No S APCR 2008 0983

AARON JAMES COTTEE	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	ASHLEY and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	22 October 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT	22 October 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2010] VSCA 285
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Cottee & Nelson (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Hicks, 18 December 2008)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – Armed robbery – Nothing apart from assistance given by co-offender to police to distinguish appellant from co-offender – Co-offender given ‘informer discount’ of approximately one third – Appellant’s contention of undue disparity – Appeal dismissed.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Ms H Spowart	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr B Sonnet	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ASHLEY JA:

I will ask Weinberg JA to deliver the first judgment in this matter.

WEINBERG JA:

The appellant, Aaron Cottee, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to one count of armed robbery. The maximum penalty for that offence is 25 years’ imprisonment. He was sentenced to a term of seven years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years.

On the same day, a co-accused, David Nelson, also pleaded guilty to that offence. He was sentenced to a term of five years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years.

A judge of this Court granted leave to appeal against sentence. There is only one ground of appeal upon which the appellant now relies, and it relates to parity.

The circumstances surrounding the offending can be briefly stated. On 18 April 2008, the appellant and Nelson robbed one Vince Dimati of some $55,000 in cash. Mr Dimati was carrying the wages for his employees in connection with his wholesale fruit business at the Footscray Fruit Market. At the relevant time the appellant was aged 27, and Nelson aged 29.

On the day in question, both men lay in wait for their victim. At about 2am, he was attacked as he left his home in Preston. He was carrying a brown leather satchel which contained the cash. Each offender was wearing dark clothing, and a full-face motorcycle helmet.

The two men attacked their victim, striking him numerous times to the head, one wielding a large spanner, and the other a hard plastic pipe. It was not clear on the evidence which of them had the spanner, and which the pipe.

As a result of the attack, Mr Dimati fell to the ground. He endeavoured to keep hold of the satchel but was continually struck about the head and body by both men. The attack ended only when he was no longer able to maintain his grip on the satchel. Both offenders then fled the scene.

As a result of their actions, Mr Dimati suffered a depressed skull fracture. He also sustained a mastoid fracture to his head, multiple abrasions, bruising, and lacerations to his scalp. He required some 35 stitches to…

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 Cottee v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Cottee v The Queen [2010] VSCA 285
Case: [2010] VSCA 285
Decision Date: 22 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Cottee v The Queen, the appellant, Cottee, appealed against the sentence imposed on him for his involvement in an armed robbery. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Cottee, considering the role he played in the armed robbery and the assistance his co-offender received from the police in exchange for a reduced sentence. The appellant argued that the sentence imposed was disproportionately severe given the assistance his co-offender received from the police.

The court was required to decide whether the sentencing disparity between Cottee and his co-offender was justified. The appellant argued that there was no meaningful distinction between his role and that of his co-offender, as both were equally culpable for the crime. Cottee contended that the assistance provided by his co-offender to the police should have been considered when determining his sentence. The court needed to weigh the principles of proportionality and individual culpability against the need to recognise and reward assistance provided to law enforcement.

The High Court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered the factors relevant to sentencing, including the appellant's role in the crime and the assistance provided by his co-offender to the police. The court held that the sentence imposed on Cottee was not disproportionate, as the trial judge had made specific findings about the appellant's culpability and had considered the assistance provided by the co-offender. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed on the appellant was upheld. The court emphasised the importance of individual culpability and the need to ensure that sentences reflect the specific circumstances and conduct of each offender.

Orders