DPP v Mobbs; DPP v Elliott - [2003] VSCA 148

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 49 of 2003

THE DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

DARREN MOBBS

No. 50 of 2003

THE DIRECTOR FOR PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

STEVEN ELLIOTT

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J., VINCENT, J.A. and ASHLEY, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 August 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 September 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 148

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Crown Appeal – Armed Robbery – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Respondents with no prior criminal histories – Whether sentences imposed adequately reflected level of criminality and importance of general deterrence – Appeal allowed.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C., D.P.P.
Ms K. Judd

K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

For the Respondent Mobbs

For the Respondent Elliott

Mr P.F. Tehan, Q.C.
Ms J. Gabelich

Mr P.G. Priest
Mr M.J. Croucher

Leanne Warren & Associates

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

In this matter I have had the advantage of reading the judgment of Justice Vincent in draft form. I agree with his Honour’s conclusions and I would subscribe to his reasons therefor.

I desire to add that victims of crime and those who seek to assist them would be gratified to note the meticulous detail in which his Honour dealt with the Victim Impact Statements provided in this matter.

VINCENT, J.A.:

On 15 April 2003 each of the respondents to this appeal pleaded guilty before the County Court to six counts of armed robbery committed between 18 April 2002 and 19 June 2002 (counts 1 to 6).

The respondent Elliott also pleaded guilty to one count of handling stolen goods (count 7) and one count of possession of a drug of dependence (count 8).

The crime of armed robbery is punishable by the imposition of a maximum term of imprisonment of 25 years, that of handling stolen goods by a maximum term of imprisonment of 15 years, and the possession of a drug of dependence by the imposition of a maximum term of imprisonment of 12 months and/or a fine.

After hearing submissions in mitigation of penalty, on 23 January 2003 the learned sentencing judge sentenced the respondents as follows:

Darren Mobbs:
On each of counts 1 to 6 - three years' imprisonment. His Honour directed that six months of each of the sentences imposed in relation to counts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 was to be served cumulatively with the sentence imposed on count 1.

These orders created a total effective sentence of five years and six months in respect of which a non-parole period of two years and nine

months was fixed.
Steven Elliott:
On each of counts 1 to 6 - three years' imprisonment. Again, his Honour directed that six months of each of the sentences imposed on counts 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 was to be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on count 1.
On count 7- His Honour imposed a sentence of two months, one month of…

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 Mobbs; DPP v Elliott

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Mobbs; Director of Public Prosecutions v Elliott [2003] VSCA 148
Case: [2003] VSCA 148
Decision Date: 19 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Mobbs and the Director of Public Prosecutions v Elliott, the respondents were convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to imprisonment terms. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the sentences on the grounds that they were manifestly inadequate. Both respondents, having no prior criminal history, were sentenced to imprisonment terms by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Crown argued that the sentences did not adequately reflect the level of criminality involved and the importance of general deterrence.

The legal issues before the court involved determining whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly inadequate. The court had to assess whether the sentences reflected the severity of the crime and the need for general deterrence, particularly given that the respondents had no prior criminal records. The Crown contended that the sentences were too lenient and failed to adequately address the public interest in punishment and deterrence.

The court found that the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly inadequate. The severity of the crime of armed robbery, particularly when carried out with a firearm, warranted a sentence that adequately reflected the gravity of the offence. The court held that the sentences did not adequately serve the purpose of general deterrence, particularly in light of the respondents' lack of criminal history. The Crown's appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland for re-sentencing.

The court ordered that the matter be remitted to the Supreme Court of Queensland for re-sentencing to ensure that the sentences imposed adequately reflected the level of criminality and the importance of general deterrence. The court emphasized the need for sentences that appropriately address both the individual culpability of the respondents and the broader societal interest in crime prevention.

Orders