Edwards v The Queen - [2011] VSCA 87

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0228

COREY EDWARDS	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	MAXWELL P, WEINBERG AND HARPER JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	28 March 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT	28 March 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2011] VSCA 87
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	DPP v Edwards (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Cannon, 24 June 2010)

---

CRIMINAL LAW- Appeal against sentence – Burglary, theft, handling stolen goods, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, possession of drug of dependence – Appellant sentenced in County Court to three years six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years three months – Appellant had 166 prior convictions from 16 court appearances – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Whether appellant’s drug use during commission of offences an aggravating factor – Whether reclaimed 12 month period of parole called for reduction in sentence – Gravity of offending coupled with prior criminal history justified sentence that could, if parole not granted, require appellant to remain incarcerated for four years and six months – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr C B Boyce	Ronald V Tait
For the Crown	Mr B L Sonnet	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P:

I will invite Weinberg JA to deliver the first judgment.

WEINBERG JA:

The appellant, Corey Edwards, now aged 33, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to two counts of burglary, three counts of theft, two counts of handling stolen goods, one count of reckless conduct endangering serious injury and one count of possession of a drug of dependence. He was sentenced as follows:

Count

Offence

Circumstances

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1

Burglary

Entered a factory by forcing a roller door

10 years imp

2 years
6 months
imp

Base

2

Handling stolen goods

Offender was driving or a passenger in a number of stolen motor vehicles

15 years imp

2 years imp

3 months

3

Theft
Stole a vehicle valued at S30,000 from the factory 10 years imp 12 months imp
-

4

Theft

Stole a safe door from the factory

10 years imp

6 months imp
-

5

Burglary

Entered a centre by forcing a front door

10 years imp

2 years imp

3 months

6

Theft

Stole two safes containing business documents

10 years imp

12 months imp

-

7

Handling stolen goods

Offender attached stolen number plates to the stolen vehicle (see count 3)
15 years imp
1 month imp

-

8

Reckless conduct endangering serious injury

Involved in police pursuit for 12 minutes — drove at wildly excessive speed and went through 1 red light

5 years imp
2 years 3 months imp
6 months

9
Possession of drug of dependence
Police found 2 grams of amphetamine in vehicle

12 months imp

1 month imp

Total Effective Sentence: = 3 years 6 months’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period = 2 years 3 months’ imprisonment

On 21 October 2010, Maxwell P granted leave to appeal.

By notice dated 22 November 2010,…

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 Edwards v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Edwards v The Queen [2011] VSCA 87
Case: [2011] VSCA 87
Decision Date: 28 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Edwards appealed against his sentence for multiple criminal offences, including burglary, theft, handling stolen goods, reckless conduct endangering serious injury, and possession of a drug of dependence. The County Court had sentenced him to three years and six months in prison, with a non-parole period of two years and three months. The appellant had a substantial criminal history, with 166 prior convictions arising from 16 court appearances. The appeal contested whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, whether the drug use during the commission of the offences constituted an aggravating factor, and whether a 12-month period of parole required a reduction in the sentence.

The court examined whether the gravity of the offending, coupled with the appellant's extensive criminal history, justified the sentence imposed. It noted that if parole was not granted, the appellant could remain incarcerated for four years and six months. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the drug use during the commission of the offences was properly considered as an aggravating factor. The court also held that the appellant's extensive criminal history warranted a significant custodial sentence to achieve the objectives of general and specific deterrence.

The appeal was dismissed, with the court affirming that the sentence was appropriate given the appellant's criminal history and the seriousness of the offending. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was necessary to achieve the objectives of general and specific deterrence, as well as denunciation of the appellant's criminal conduct.

Orders