DPP v Reid - [2004] VSCA 105

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 6 of 2004

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
STEPHEN GLEN REID

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES, BATT and VINCENT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	21 April 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 June 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 105

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Crown appeal – Car and contents thefts (5), conspiracy to steal, cannabis cultivation and theft of electricity – By recidivist while on parole – Aggregate of 4 years with an 18-months non-parole period – Latter manifestly inadequate, 3 years substituted – Effect of s.16(3B) of Sentencing Act 1991.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr G. Horgan S.C.	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr P.F. Tehan Q.C. Mr M.J. Croucher	Randles Cooper & Co. Pty. Ltd.

CHARLES, J.A.:

Having read the reasons for judgment prepared by Batt, J.A. I agree that the director’s appeal should be allowed and the respondent re-sentenced as proposed by his Honour, and for the reasons given.

BATT, J.A.:

On 11 November 2003 the respondent, Stephen Glen Reid, who was born on 4 May 1949, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to five counts of handling stolen goods[1], one count of conspiracy to steal, one count of theft of electricity and one count of cultivating a narcotic plant (cannabis). The maximum custodial penalties applicable to those offences were imprisonment for 15 years for handling stolen goods, for 10 years for conspiracy to steal and for theft and, in the circumstances of this case, for 15 years (with an additional or alternative penalty of a fine of $100,000) for cultivation. The applicant admitted 70 prior convictions from 21 appearances before the Magistrates’ Court, the Court of General Sessions, the County Court and the Supreme Courts of Victoria and Tasmania from 1967 to 1997. They were mainly for driving and property or dishonesty offences, though there were also several offences of violence. Of particular relevance for present purposes were convictions for possession of property reasonably suspected of being stolen (2), assisting in the disposal of stolen goods, handling stolen goods and, in particular, 30 of the 31 convictions sustained in the County Court at Ballarat on 9 October 1997, which were convictions on 28 counts of handling stolen goods, one count of theft and one count of trafficking in cannabis. The respondent was sentenced on that occasion to a total effective sentence of imprisonment for five years and six months with a non-parole period of three years and six months.
[1]Which is defined in s.88(1) of the Crimes Act 1958 as including assisting in the retention of stolen goods.

The sentencing judge heard a plea for leniency, in the course of which he was handed a copy of the sentencing remarks of Judge Kelly of 9 October 1997 and one witness, a counsellor from Matchworks, a community based organisation providing, relevantly, a personal support program, was called on behalf of the respondent. His…

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 Reid

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Reid [2004] VSCA 105
Case: [2004] VSCA 105
Decision Date: 4 June 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, in this case the Director of Public Prosecutions, appealed a sentence imposed on the respondent, who was convicted of five counts of stealing cars and their contents, conspiracy to steal, cultivating cannabis, and stealing electricity. The respondent, a recidivist, committed these offences while on parole. The sentence imposed by the trial judge was an aggregate of four years, with an 18-month non-parole period, which the Crown deemed manifestly inadequate. The appeal focused on the proportionality and adequacy of the sentence, particularly the non-parole period, in light of the respondent's criminal history and the nature of the offences committed. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate, and if so, what the appropriate sentence should be.

The court considered the gravity of the respondent's criminal history and the specific offences committed. It was noted that the respondent had been on parole at the time of the commission of the offences, which underscored the breach of trust and the need for a robust response. The court also examined the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991, particularly the need to ensure that the sentence reflects the seriousness of the offence and the offender's culpability. The court concluded that the 18-month non-parole period was indeed manifestly inadequate and substituted a sentence of three years imprisonment, with an 11-month non-parole period. The court emphasised the importance of proportionality and deterrence in sentencing, particularly for repeat offenders who breach the conditions of their parole.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle that sentences should reflect the seriousness of the offence and the offender's culpability, while also serving the purposes of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The court found that the original sentence failed to adequately address these principles and did not sufficiently reflect the gravity of the respondent's criminal conduct. By imposing a new sentence of three years with an 11-month non-parole period, the court aimed to ensure that the punishment was proportionate to the offences committed and that the objectives of sentencing were met. The appeal was thus upheld, and the respondent's sentence was altered accordingly.

Orders