Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Stevens

DPP v Stevens

Case [2013] VSCA 187 25 July 2013

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0034

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Appellant
	v
JASON MAXWELL STEVENS	Respondent

---

JUDGES	NETTLE, OSBORN and COGHLAN JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	25 July 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	25 July 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 187
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	The Queen v Stevens (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Douglas, 26 February 2013)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal by Director of Public Prosecutions – Armed robbery – Guilty plea – Respondent sentenced to five years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of three years fixed – Whether sentencing judge erred in taking into account the principle of totality – Whether sentencing judge erred in taking into account remorse – Whether manifest inadequacy – Where numerous prior convictions for similar offending – Established modus operandi – Use of large knives – Where sentence imposed was higher than those previously imposed on the respondent for similar offending – Appeal allowed – Respondent re-sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr B F Kissane	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr M Croucher SC with Ms K Argiropoulos	Amad and Amad Lawyers

NETTLE JA

I invite Osborn JA to deliver the judgment.

OSBORN JA:

On 6 February 2013 Jason Stevens was convicted of one charge of armed robbery following a plea of guilty in the County Court. On 26 February 2013 her Honour Judge Douglas sentenced him to five years’ imprisonment and fixed a non-parole period of three years. Her Honour declared that but for the plea of guilty she would have imposed a sentence of eight years’ imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of six years’ imprisonment.

The Director of Public Prosecutions (‘DPP’) now appeals this sentence on three grounds:

(a) the sentencing judge erred in taking into account the principle of totality;

(b) the sentencing judge erred in sentencing the respondent on the basis that he was remorseful; and

(c) the head sentence and the non-parole period were manifestly inadequate.

For the reasons which follow I accept that the ground of manifest inadequacy has been made out and that the respondent should be resentenced.

The background facts

On 23 March 2012 Stevens was living in Dandenong with a much younger woman, AJ, and her mother, HD. He left the house shortly after 8:00 am and at approximately 8:30 am confronted a newsagent, Van Hoang, who was serving behind the counter of his business in Hemmings Street.

Hoang heard a voice say, ‘Where’s the money?’ He looked up and saw Stevens who had covered his head with a hoodie and face with black cloth, was wearing overalls and was brandishing a large kitchen knife. Stevens then jumped the counter. Hoang ran around the counter, fearing for his safety, and escaped from the shop. Some $300 to $400 cash was taken.

I should add that the closed circuit television images tendered to the…

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 Stevens

Details

AGLC: DPP v Stevens [2013] VSCA 187
Case: [2013] VSCA 187
Decision Date: 25 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Stevens, was convicted of armed robbery and subsequently pleaded guilty. The sentencing judge imposed a five-year sentence with a non-parole period of three years. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge had erred in applying the principle of totality and considering the respondent’s remorse. The appeal centred on whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate, given the respondent’s extensive criminal history and established pattern of armed robbery with large knives.

The court examined whether the sentencing judge had misapplied the principle of totality and inappropriately considered the respondent’s remorse. The established modus operandi and the severity of the offence, involving the use of large knives, were significant factors. The court considered the principle of totality, which suggests that the cumulative sentence for multiple offences should not be excessive, and the role of remorse in sentencing. Despite the respondent’s plea of guilty and expression of remorse, the court found that the sentence did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence and the respondent’s criminal history.

The court concluded that the sentence was manifestly inadequate. It allowed the appeal and re-sentenced the respondent to seven years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months. This decision underscored the need for sentences to reflect the gravity of the offence and the offender’s criminal history, balancing the principle of totality with the need for deterrence and protection of the community.

Orders