DPP v Winslett - [2004] VSC 426

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1441 of 2004

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

KRISTY MARIE WINSLETT

---

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18, 22 October 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 October 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Winslett
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 426

---

Criminal law – sentencing – armed robbery with blood–filled syringe (two counts) – plea of guilty – normal sentence substantial term of imprisonment immediately to be served – exceptional circumstances – fully suspended sentences of imprisonment imposed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr R. Elston	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms J. Hughes	Robert Stary and Associates

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

HIS HONOUR:

Kristy Marie Winslett, you have pleaded guilty to two serious crimes: first, that at Dandenong on 17 February 2004, you robbed Saj Palanagama of money when you had with you an offensive weapon, namely a blood-filled syringe; and, second, that at Hampton Park, five days later, on 22 February 2004, you robbed Dawn Kettle of money when you had with you an offensive weapon, again a blood-filled syringe.

Those two offences are serious offences of armed robbery. They are doubly serious because in each case you inflicted upon the two victims very real fear of a dreadful sort. And they are trebly serious because on each occasion your victim was alone: in the first instance a young man loyally serving customers and in the second instance a middle aged woman loyally serving customers. In each case the victims were alone, unprotected and vulnerable.

In the first instance, Count 1, on 17 February 2004 you robbed a young man staffing the retail area of the Safeway Plus Service Station at South Gippsland Highway, South Dandenong. He was 25 years of age and a part-time employee. I have observed the security video of the scene and I have seen the young man in the video. Plainly he was a courteous and helpful person.

He had commenced his work shift at 7.00 pm on 17 February 2004. At about 5 past 10 p.m., when he was alone serving and you were alone in the shop, you went up to him, and after some desultory questions by you, he came from behind the counter to show you where the chocolates you enquired of were. You then grabbed his right arm and said, "Give me the money, don't try anything, I am going to stab you". You were holding a blood-filled syringe. You held the blood-filled syringe up to his face, as though you were going to stab him. The victim said he could see it was a syringe containing what looked like blood and he was very shocked at what was happening. The victim complied with your directions at the point of the blood-filled syringe, returned to the counter,…

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 Winslett

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Winslett [2004] VSC 426
Case: [2004] VSC 426
Decision Date: 22 October 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Winslett involved the defendant's conviction for two counts of armed robbery. Winslett was armed with a blood-filled syringe during the robberies. He pleaded guilty and the prosecution sought a substantial term of imprisonment to be served immediately. However, the court was tasked with determining whether exceptional circumstances existed to warrant a fully suspended sentence of imprisonment.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the exceptional circumstances outlined in section 10 of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) applied to justify a fully suspended sentence, despite the serious nature of the offences. The court had to weigh the severity of the crimes against any mitigating factors presented by the defence. It was also necessary to consider the principles of sentencing outlined in the Act, particularly those relating to deterrence, denunciation, rehabilitation, and the protection of the community.

The court found that, although the crimes were serious and involved the use of a dangerous weapon, there were exceptional circumstances present. These included the defendant's background, his cooperation with authorities, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of considering these factors in light of the principles of justice and proportionality. Consequently, the court imposed fully suspended sentences of imprisonment, deciding that immediate incarceration was not warranted given the exceptional circumstances.

No further orders were made by the court beyond the imposition of the fully suspended sentences.

Orders