DPP v Snell - [2005] VSCA 131

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 60 of 2005

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
CAINE MICHAEL SNELL

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES and EAMES, JJ.A. and BYRNE, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 May 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 May 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 131

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Director’s appeal – Aggravated burglary – Causing serious injury intentionally – Young offender – Drug addiction – Long criminal history – Further offences whilst on bail – Sentences of 5 months for aggravated burglary, 4 months for intentionally causing serious injury manifestly inadequate – Genuine prospects of rehabilitation – Appeal allowed – Sentence of three years’ imprisonment, wholly suspended, substituted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C., D.P.P. with Mrs M. Williams	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr O.P. Holdenson, Q.C.	Clarebrough Pica

CHARLES, J.A.:

On 6 September 2004 the respondent pleaded not guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to a presentment alleging some 11 counts against him, four of which included allegations involving a co-conspirator Kym Goralski. On 14 September the respondent was found guilty on the following four counts:

1.Count 1: aggravated burglary on 13 March 2003 of Flat 1, 76 Rooks Road, Nunawading;
2.Count 2: intentionally causing serious injury on 13 March 2003 to Andrew Falls;
3.Count 4: intentionally causing injury on 13 March 2003 to David Falls;
4.Count 6: stealing a quantity of money and Victoria Bitter cans on 13 March 2003 from Andrew Falls.

The maximum sentence for aggravated burglary was then 25 years, for intentionally causing serious injury, 20 years, and for both intentionally causing injury and theft, 10 years’ imprisonment respectively. On the other charges alleged against the respondent, he was found not guilty. Goralski was found guilty of theft, and attempting to obtain property by deception, in both cases on 11 May 2003.

At a plea, the hearing of which began on 17 September 2004, the respondent admitted 29 previous findings of guilt without conviction from two appearances in the Children’s Court, 56 prior convictions from seven appearances in the Children’s Court, and 101 prior convictions from 14 appearances in the Magistrate’s Court. The respondent’s prior convictions included 54 burglaries, two aggravated burglaries, one assault with intent to rob and one unlawful assault, and numerous convictions for dishonesty and drug offences.

During the plea, counsel for the respondent relied on a report by Sarah Covill dated 3 September 2004, a report from Bernard Healey of 2 August 2004 and a further report from K. Hoffman and Anne Berrett of 24 May 2004. Victim impact statements of Andrew Falls and David Falls were tendered. The plea was adjourned to 5 November 2004 to enable a pre-sentence report to be obtained. A pre-sentence report was duly obtained from the Community Correctional Services, dated 22 October 2004. Further sentencing hearings occurred on 12 November 2004, and 7 February 2005. On 7 February evidence was called from Major Dennis McMillan…

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 Snell

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Snell [2005] VSCA 131
Case: [2005] VSCA 131
Decision Date: 23 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Snell, the court dealt with an appeal against the sentence given to the defendant for aggravated burglary and intentionally causing serious injury. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Director of Public Prosecutions sought to appeal the leniency of the sentences handed down by the County Court, which had imposed a total of nine months imprisonment for the defendant, Snell, who had committed aggravated burglary and intentionally caused serious injury to a victim.

The legal issues before the court included whether the original sentences were manifestly inadequate and whether the County Court had failed to sufficiently consider the seriousness of the crimes, the defendant's long criminal history, and his drug addiction. The court had to determine if there were genuine prospects of rehabilitation for the defendant, and whether the sentences imposed were appropriate given the circumstances. The court also had to consider whether the sentences adequately reflected the community's expectations of justice for the crimes committed.

The court found that the sentences imposed by the County Court were manifestly inadequate given the gravity of the offences committed. The court emphasised the need for sentences to reflect the community's expectations of justice and to provide adequate deterrence. The sentencing judge had failed to appropriately account for the seriousness of the offences, the defendant's drug addiction, and his extensive criminal history. The court also noted the genuine prospects of rehabilitation for Snell, who had shown a willingness to engage in rehabilitation programs. Considering these factors, the court substituted the original sentences with a sentence of three years' imprisonment, wholly suspended. This decision acknowledged the need for rehabilitation while also maintaining a strong message of deterrence.

The court's final orders substituted the original sentences with a wholly suspended sentence of three years' imprisonment, effectively reflecting the gravity of the offences and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders