Legal Research
Cases
Darcie v The Queen

Darcie v The Queen

Case [2012] VSCA 11 9 February 2012

Sentencing

Criminal Liability

Armed Robbery

Attempted Armed Robbery

Theft

Handling Stolen Goods

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2011 0148
CARLYLE STUART DARCIE	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN JA and WILLIAMS AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	17 January 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 February 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 11
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Darcie (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Allen, 12 April 2011)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, theft and handling stolen goods – Sentencing judge concluded that other victims had experiences similar to those of victim who made a victim impact statement – Relevance of deportation – Recognition of real risk of deportation – Likelihood of deportation a matter of speculation –Total effective sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment not manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr J E McLoughlin with Mr D Gibson	Victoria Legal Aid (Ms J Munster)
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions (Ms S Aridas)

BUCHANAN JA:

I agree with Williams AJA.

WILLIAMS AJA:

The appellant has been given leave to appeal against sentences imposed upon him in the County Court on 12 April 2011.

He was sentenced to 1 month’s imprisonment for handling stolen goods (charge 1), 1 month’s imprisonment for theft (charge 2), 3 years’ imprisonment for armed robbery (charge 3), 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for attempted armed robbery (charge 4), 3 years’ imprisonment for a second armed robbery (charge 5) and 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment for a second attempted armed robbery (charge 6), as well as one month’s imprisonment for a second theft (charge 7).

The total effective sentence was 6 years’ imprisonment and a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months was fixed. The sentencing judge declared under s 6AAA of the Sentencing Act 1991 that, but for the plea, he would have imposed a total effective sentence of 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years.

The maximum penalty for handling stolen goods, contrary to s 88 of the Crimes Act 1958, was 15 years’ imprisonment, for theft, contrary to s 74(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, was 10 years’ imprisonment, for armed robbery, contrary to s 75A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, was 25 years’ imprisonment and for attempted armed robbery, contrary to s 75(1) and s 321 of the Crimes Act 1958, was 20 years’ imprisonment.

Circumstances of the offences

On 13 September 2010 a set of registration plates bearing the number QMN 843 was stolen from a car parked at Gladstone Park Community Centre. The appellant affixed the stolen registration plates to his father’s Toyota Camry motor

vehicle (charge 1).

On 21 September 2010, he drove that car to a service station. He put petrol, worth $50, into the car and drove off without paying for it (charge 2).

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 Darcie v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Darcie v R [2012] VSCA 11
Case: [2012] VSCA 11
Decision Date: 9 February 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In this case, Darcie appealed against his conviction and sentence, following his involvement in a series of robberies and handling stolen goods. The court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the appeal raised a point of principle. The primary issues were whether the sentencing judge correctly considered the impact of deportation on Darcie's potential rehabilitation, and if the totality of the sentence was appropriate.

The court found that the sentencing judge had appropriately recognised the real risk of deportation but held that the likelihood of deportation remained speculative. The judge had considered the victim impact statement and the similarity of experiences of other victims in reaching the sentence. The court noted that the total effective sentence of six years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of three years and six months’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The appeal was dismissed as it did not raise a point of principle or any significant error in the application of the law.

The court emphasised that while the risk of deportation was a relevant consideration, it did not warrant a significant reduction in the sentence. The impact of the crimes on the victims was severe, and the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences. The appeal was unsuccessful as the sentence was within the appropriate range for the offences committed. The court found no grounds for interference with the sentence imposed by the primary judge.

Orders