Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Hodgson

DPP v Hodgson

Case [2019] VSCA 49 13 March 2019

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0121

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Appellant
v
SHANE HODGSON	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	KAYE, NIALL and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25, 28 February, 5 March 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 March 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 49
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Hodgson [2018] VCC 875 (Judge Condon)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – DPP appeal – Sentence – Armed robbery – Committed in company armed with shotgun – Whether a sentence of five years and five months’ imprisonment manifestly inadequate – Residual discretion of the court not to intervene – Medical evidence on DPP appeal s 321 Criminal Procedure Act 2009 — Appeal allowed – Resentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr C B Boyce SC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr D Hallowes SC with Ms E Clark	Stary Norton Halphen

KAYE JA

NIALL JA
WEINBERG JA:

Introduction and summary

This appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions (‘the Director’),[1] is brought against a sentence imposed on the respondent in the County Court on a single count of armed robbery. The respondent, who was 22 years of age at the time of the offending and is now 24,[2] was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of five years and five months with a non-parole period of three years and four months.
[1]Pursuant to s 287 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (‘Criminal Procedure Act’).
[2]The respondent’s date of birth is 22 July 1994.

The appellant relies on two grounds of appeal. The first is that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and the second, which was in substance no more than a particular of the first, alleges that the judge misapplied the principle of parity so as to reduce the sentence to a point of manifest inadequacy. There were two co-offenders in the armed robbery, Gretelianos and Brittain. Gretelianos received a sentence of four years’ imprisonment with a two year and four months non-parole period and Brittain a community corrections order of four years. In order to explain the parity ground it will be necessary, in due course, to set out the matters relevant to the sentences imposed on the co-offenders.

In summary, on the material before the sentencing judge, the sentence was manifestly inadequate. It did not properly reflect the gravity of the offence, the respondent’s appalling criminal record, including for similar offending and the need to protect the community through deterrence and incarceration. The young age of the respondent, his deprived upbringing, plea of guilty, parity and that this was to be his first sentence in adult prison all had legitimate claims to moderate the sentence. However, they could not justify the leniency extended by the judge.

Since the sentence was imposed, the respondent has become acutely unwell, suffering from psychotic episodes with a history of self-harming, requiring hospitalisation in Thomas Embling Hospital (‘Thomas Embling’) where…

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 Hodgson

Details

AGLC: DPP v Hodgson [2019] VSCA 49
Case: [2019] VSCA 49
Decision Date: 13 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on Hodgson for armed robbery, arguing that the original sentence of five years and five months’ imprisonment was manifestly inadequate. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was required to determine whether the sentence was too lenient in light of the severity of the crime, and whether there were grounds to exercise the court’s residual discretion to intervene. The court considered the nature of the offence, the use of a weapon, and the impact on the victim. It also reviewed the sentencing principles and the medical evidence provided.

The court found that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime and the need for general deterrence. The use of a shotgun during the robbery significantly escalated the risk and harm to the victim. The court emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the criminal justice system and ensuring that sentences for serious offences such as armed robbery are commensurate with the gravity of the crime. Given the evidence presented, the court concluded that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and exercised its residual discretion to increase the sentence.

As a result, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was varied to seven years and six months’ imprisonment. The court underscored the importance of proportionality in sentencing and the need to ensure that sentences for armed robbery, particularly when committed in company and with a weapon, reflect the severe nature of such offences. The decision reinforces the principle that the courts retain the power to intervene in cases where the original sentence does not adequately address the seriousness of the crime committed.

Orders