DPP v Douglas - [2006] VSCA 160

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 113 of 2006

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
ANDREW ROBB DOUGLAS

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL, P., BUCHANAN and VINCENT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 July 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 August 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 160	1st Revision – 17 August 2006

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Crown appeal – Aggravated burglary and intentionally causing serious injury – Relevance of provocation – Wholly suspended sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment for aggravated burglary and six months’ imprisonment for intentionally causing serious injury did not reflect the gravity of the offences – Appeal dismissed in the exercise of discretion.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C., D.P.P. with Mr M.A. Gamble	Ms A. Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr. M.J. Croucher	Billings Cloak

MAXWELL, P.:

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Buchanan, J.A. For the reasons given by his Honour, I too would dismiss the appeal.

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

On 27 March 2004 one Shamsi telephoned the respondent’s wife and left a message on her answering machine. He said that “I have been with you three times”, that “I don’t want you any more” and that she was “very very slutty and very very shifty” and her body is “very very smelly and very very ugly.” The sentencing judge accepted that the allegations were untrue. The respondent’s wife heard the message in the presence of her seven-year-old daughter. She told the respondent, who listened to the message himself.

The respondent armed himself with a baseball bat and enlisted the aid of one Malloy. Together they went to the house in which Shamsi was living. The couple who owned the house and their four young children were all in the house. Shamsi answered the door. A fight ensued. Shamsi retreated into the house and locked himself in a bedroom where the children were asleep. The respondent and Malloy entered the house, attacked the bedroom door with the baseball bat and assaulted Shamsi. Shamsi was dragged to the front of the house where he was further punched and kicked. Shamsi suffered a laceration to his right eyebrow and upper lip, broken teeth, a fractured rib and bruising to his chest. Shamsi was treated in hospital for five days.

The respondent was arraigned in the County Court and pleaded guilty to a presentment containing one count of aggravated burglary, one count of intentionally causing serious injury and one count of damaging property intentionally and without lawful excuse. After a plea the respondent was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of 15 months on the count of aggravated burglary, for a term of 15 months on the count of intentionally causing serious injury and for a term of three months on

the count of criminal damage. Three months of the sentence on the second count was directed to be served cumulatively upon the sentence on the first count,…

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 Douglas

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Douglas [2006] VSCA 160
Case: [2006] VSCA 160
Decision Date: 17 August 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved a Crown appeal against the sentences imposed on Douglas, who had been convicted of aggravated burglary and intentionally causing serious injury. The primary issue before the court was whether the wholly suspended sentences of 12 months’ imprisonment for the aggravated burglary and six months’ imprisonment for the serious injury adequately reflected the gravity of the offences committed. The prosecution argued that the sentences were insufficient and failed to account for the severity of the crimes and their impact on the victims. The defence maintained that the sentences were appropriate, given the circumstances and the mitigating factors considered by the sentencing judge.

The court considered the nature and severity of the offences, the impact on the victims, and the principles of sentencing, particularly the need for sentences to reflect the seriousness of the crimes. The court noted that wholly suspended sentences may be appropriate in certain circumstances but emphasised the necessity for them to reflect the gravity of the offences. In this instance, the court found that the sentences did not adequately address the severity of the crimes. The court also considered the relevance of provocation, but ultimately determined that it did not justify the leniency of the sentences imposed. The court held that the wholly suspended sentences did not appropriately reflect the seriousness of the offences, and as such, the appeal was dismissed in the exercise of discretion.

Consequently, the court dismissed the Crown’s appeal, upholding the original sentences imposed by the lower court. The court emphasised that while wholly suspended sentences may be appropriate in certain circumstances, they must adequately reflect the gravity of the offences committed. In this case, the court found that the sentences did not appropriately account for the severity of the crimes and their impact on the victims. The court did not alter the sentences, and the original wholly suspended sentences for the aggravated burglary and intentionally causing serious injury remained in place.

Orders