DPP v Crow - [2003] VSCA 104

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 67 of 2003

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
JACK CROW

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., CALLAWAY and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	30 July 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 August 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 104

---

Criminal law – Director’s appeal – Armed robbery – Offences committed whilst on parole – Sentences imposed calculated to enable release on “suspended sentence” with little time actually served – Endeavour to “break cycle of institutionalization” – Sentence manifestly inadequate

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr. P.A. Coghlan Q.C., D.P.P. and Mr. T.P. Burke	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr. P.G. Priest Q.C. and Mr. S.T. Russell	Haines & Polites

WINNEKE, P.:

The respondent, Jack Crow (also known as “Fred Jackson”) has had a most unfortunate life. He is now aged 34 years. He was one of 10 children and appears to have had very little family support, apart from his mother, throughout his life. He was made a ward of state in 1976 and it appears he rapidly descended into a life of crime. We are told that he became uncontrollable at a young age and his record, since he was 17, can only be described as despairing. In short, he has spent the greater part of his life in one form of institution or another; for the last 18 or so years the institution has been adult prison. His criminal history demonstrates a graduation from petty theft and driving offences, through the use of drugs and assaulting police to conduct endangering life, cultivation of cannabis, arson and armed robbery. In short, it can be said that the respondent is a career criminal who, during the last 16 to 18 years, has enjoyed only brief episodes of life beyond prison. Indeed, at the time when he committed the offences with which this Court is concerned, he had been on parole; a parole which he had breached by other offences unrelated to those with which we are concerned and which had brought about the cancellation of that parole and the issue of a warrant which remained unexecuted when the current offences occurred.

On 31 May 2001 the respondent drove with his female friend, one Gaylene Meier, to a house in Laverton which was occupied by Gregory Sultana, his partner, Linda Maresceaux, and their young child. The respondent and his friend carried with them a sawn-off rifle which has never been recovered. The evident purpose of their visit was to ask for, and if necessary take, amphetamine based tablets which were in the possession of Sultana and his partner for the treatment of their son who suffered from an attention deficit hyper activity disorder. It would seem that Meier wished to have these tablets, or at least some of them, for a purpose other than that for which they were prescribed. The respondent and Meier were obviously known to, but not liked by, Sultana and his partner.…

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 DPP v Crow

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Crow [2003] VSCA 104
Case: [2003] VSCA 104
Decision Date: 15 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal was brought by the Director of Public Prosecutions against the sentence imposed on Crow, who had committed armed robbery while on parole. Crow was already serving a sentence for an earlier offence when the armed robbery took place. The Director argued that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly inadequate, calculated to enable Crow's release on a suspended sentence with little time actually served, and did not reflect the seriousness of the crime or the need for general deterrence. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether it failed to adequately reflect the principles of punishment and deterrence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate. The trial judge had considered the need to break the cycle of institutionalisation and had imposed a sentence that would allow Crow to be released on a suspended sentence with minimal actual time served. However, the court held that this approach did not adequately reflect the principles of punishment and deterrence. The court emphasised the need for sentences to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and to reflect the need for general deterrence. The court also noted that Crow's criminal history and the fact that the armed robbery was committed while on parole demonstrated a clear disregard for the law and the need for public protection.

Ultimately, the Court of Criminal Appeal allowed the Director’s appeal and ordered a retrial for sentencing. The court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and did not adequately reflect the principles of punishment and deterrence. The court emphasised the need for sentences to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and to reflect the need for general deterrence. The court also noted that the trial judge had not adequately considered the need for public protection and the need to break the cycle of institutionalisation. The court ordered a retrial for sentencing, giving directions to the trial judge to impose a sentence that adequately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal did not make any final orders in this appeal. Instead, the court ordered a retrial for sentencing, giving directions to the trial judge to impose a sentence that adequately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The court emphasised the need for sentences to be proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and to reflect the need for general deterrence. The court also noted that the trial judge had not adequately considered the need for public protection and the need to break the cycle of institutionalisation. The court's decision in this case highlights the importance of ensuring that sentences are proportionate to the seriousness of the offence and adequately reflect the principles of punishment and deterrence.

Orders