Edward Robinson v The Queen - [2017] VSCA 101

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0010

EDWARD ROBINSON	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE (DETERMINED BY A SINGLE JUDGE PURSUANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009)
---

JUDGE:	TATE JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 May 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	3 May 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 101
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2016] VCC 2068 (Judge McInerney)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal – Sentence – Aggravated burglary, intentionally causing injury, storing a firearm in an insecure manner whilst unlicensed and possession of ammunition without a licence – Total effective sentence of five years and six months’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of three years – Parity – Manifest excess – Crown concessions – Leave to appeal granted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms M J Mykytowycz	Lethbridge Barristers & Solicitors
For the Respondent	Mr B L Sonnet	Mr John Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

TATE JA:

The applicant, Edward Robinson, seeks leave to appeal against the sentence imposed on him in the County Court of Victoria on 16 December 2016. It appears that he pleaded guilty at the committal on 18 May 2016, and again before the plea hearing on 1 August 2016, to one charge of aggravated burglary (trespass with intent to assault, person present) contrary to s 77 of the Crimes Act 1958, one charge of intentionally causing injury contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act, one charge of storing a firearm in an insecure manner whilst unlicensed contrary to s 129A of the Firearms Act 1996, and a summary offence of possession of ammunition without a licence contrary to s 124(1) of the Firearms Act. His younger brother, Mark Robinson, who faced similar charges as a co-offender, also pleaded guilty to the charges against him. The two men were sentenced together by the same judge on 16 December 2016.[1]
[1]DPP v Robinson [2016] VCC 2068 (‘Sentencing reasons’).

Edward Robinson was sentenced as follows:

Charge on Indictment

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1 Aggravated burglary [Crimes Act 1958 s 77(1)(b))] 25 years’ imprisonment 5 years’ imprisonment Base

2 Intentionally causing injury [Crimes Act 1958 s 18] 10 years’ imprisonment 12 months’ imprisonment 6 months

3 Storing a firearm in an insecure manner whilst unlicensed [Firearms Act 1996 s 129A] 240 penalty units or 4 years’ imprisonment 6 months’ imprisonment Concurrent

4

(summary offence)
Possession of ammunition without a licence [Firearms Act 1996 s 124(1)] 40 penalty units Convicted and fined 5 penalty units

Total Effective Sentence:

5 years and 6 months’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period:

3 years

Pre-Sentence detention declaration:

183 days

Section 6AAA Statement: 7 years and 4 months’ imprisonment, non-parole period 4 years and 6 months.

Other relevant orders: Forensic Sample Order pursuant to s 464ZF of the Crimes Act 1958. Disposal order made.

The judge imposed a sentence of five years’ imprisonment on each…

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 Edward Robinson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Edward Robinson v The Queen [2017] VSCA 101
Case: [2017] VSCA 101
Decision Date: 3 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Edward Robinson was convicted of several serious criminal offences and was sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of five years and six months. The non-parole period was three years. Robinson sought leave to appeal against his sentence. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether there was a parity error in sentencing. The Court was also required to consider the concessions made by the Crown during the appeal.

The Court found that while the sentence was severe, it was not manifestly excessive. However, the Court did find a parity error in sentencing. This was due to the Court imposing a more severe sentence on Robinson than on co-offenders who had committed similar offences. The Court also took into account the concessions made by the Crown during the appeal. These included the Crown conceding that the non-parole period should be reduced by six months.

The Court granted leave to appeal against the sentence. The non-parole period was reduced by six months, and the total effective sentence was reduced to five years.

Orders