Legal Research
Cases
Dean v The Queen

Dean v The Queen

Case [2020] VSCA 100 1 May 2020

Appeal

Aggravated & Exemplary Damages

Sentence

Plea of Guilty

Early Plea

Joint Criminal Enterprise

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2019 0067

NICHOLAS DEAN	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH, KAYE and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	28 April 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 May 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 100
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2017] VCC 1989 (Judge Murphy)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Conviction – Aggravated home invasion and armed robbery against father and son – Applicant pleaded guilty to two charges of armed robbery – One charge of armed robbery alleged appropriation of property belonging to father (charge 2) – Second charge of armed robbery alleged appropriation of property belonging to son (charge 3) – Whether, on admitted facts, applicant could be said to be guilty of armed robbery against son – Applicant accepted summary of prosecution opening in the course of plea hearing – No challenge during plea hearing as to manner in which charge 3 formulated – Plea of guilty to be given its ordinary effect – Application for leave to appeal against conviction refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Aggravated home invasion – Armed robbery – Possessing drug of dependence – Early plea – Offending in company – Joint criminal enterprise – Total effective term of 7 years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of 4 years and 4 months – Sentence of 6 years’ imprisonment on charge of aggravated home invasion – Sentence of 2 years’ imprisonment on charge of armed robbery with 6 months’ cumulation – Whether sentence on charge of aggravated home invasion unfairly disparate from those of co-offenders – Parity principles properly considered and explained by sentencing judge – Whether sentence on charge of armed robbery manifestly excessive – No reasonable prospect this Court would reduce total effective sentence even if error could be established – Section 280(1)(b) of Criminal Procedure Act 2009 applied – Application for leave to appeal against sentence refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant:	Mr C K Wareham	Valos Black & Associates
For the Respondent:	Ms M Mahady	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA
KAYE JA

WEINBERG JA:

On 10 July 2017, the applicant, Nicholas Dean, pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of aggravated home invasion, two charges of armed robbery, and one charge of possession of a drug of dependence (namely, methylamphetamine). He had been charged together with two co-offenders, Adrian McLean (who pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated home invasion, one charge of possession of a drug of dependence, and a related summary offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail), and Amanda David (who pleaded guilty to one charge of aggravated home invasion, one charge of theft, one charge of possession of a drug of dependence, and a related summary offence of assaulting an emergency worker whilst on duty). On the Crown case, it was alleged that the charge of aggravated home invasion was based upon joint criminal enterprise.

On 21 December 2017, the applicant was sentenced as…

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 Dean v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Nicholas Dean v The Queen [2020] VSCA 100
Case: [2020] VSCA 100
Decision Date: 1 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Dean v The Queen, the appellant, Dean, appealed against both his conviction and sentence for a series of offences including aggravated home invasion and armed robbery against his father and son. Dean had pleaded guilty to two charges of armed robbery and his appeal challenged the validity of his conviction on one of these charges, specifically whether he could be held guilty of armed robbery against his son. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining if the appellant's plea of guilty could be upheld given the circumstances.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether the plea of guilty to the armed robbery charge against the son should be accepted at face value, and whether the sentence imposed was disproportionately harsh relative to his co-offenders. The Court examined whether there was any procedural unfairness in the plea hearing or in the formulation of the charge. Additionally, it assessed the sentence's proportionality, considering the principles of parity and the totality of the offending.

The Court found that the appellant's plea of guilty should be given its ordinary effect, as no challenge was made during the plea hearing concerning the charge's formulation. The Court held that the plea of guilty was valid and, therefore, the conviction stood. Regarding the sentence, the Court held that the sentencing judge had properly considered the principles of parity and had provided a reasoned explanation for the disparity in sentences between the appellant and his co-offenders. The Court further determined that there was no reasonable prospect that the total effective sentence would be reduced even if an error in sentencing was identified, and accordingly, the appeal against the sentence was dismissed.

The High Court ultimately refused the appellant leave to appeal against both his conviction and sentence. The Court's decision reaffirmed the importance of procedural correctness in plea hearings and the need for proportionality and parity in sentencing, while also recognising the weight given to a valid guilty plea in criminal proceedings.

Orders