Flint v The Queen - [2012] VSCA 240

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0144

DOUGLAS JOHN FLINT	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

- - -

JUDGE:	BUCHANAN and NETTLE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	26 September 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 September 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 240
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Flint (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Hicks, 30 May 2012)

- - -

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Aggravated burglary and intentionally causing injury – Non-parole period not manifestly excessive – No point of principle.

- - -

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T E Wraight	Lethbridges Pty Ltd
For the Crown	Mr C J Ryan SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA:

The applicant was arraigned and pleaded guilty in the County Court to an indictment containing one charge of aggravated burglary and one charge of intentionally causing injury.

A plea was conducted and the applicant was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of 3 years on the charge of aggravated burglary and for a term of 12 months on the charge of intentionally causing injury. Four months of the sentence on the charge of intentionally causing injury were cumulated upon the sentence on the charge of aggravated burglary, creating a total effective sentence of 3 years and 4 months’ imprisonment. A minimum term of 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment was fixed.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on the ground that the non-parole period is manifestly excessive.

The offences took place at the premises of a designer menswear retail shop in South Melbourne. On 20 June 2011 there was an argument between a female employee and a female employer at the premises. The employee left and the employer arranged for a letter to be delivered by courier to her residence.

That afternoon, the applicant went to the shop with Glen Wills, the de facto partner of the female employee. The female employer had left the premises, leaving in attendance Alessandro Di Costanzo and his girlfriend. Before he arrived at the shop, the applicant telephoned and spoke to Mr Di Costanzo. He said that his name was Michael and he wanted to come to the shop to buy a suit. He said he would arrive in about 10 minutes.

Mr Di Costanzo heard the doorbell ring and used the intercom system to communicate with the applicant, who was at the door of the shop. The applicant said that his name was Michael and he asked to enter the shop. Mr Di Costanzo pressed a buzzer that opened the front door and walked down stairs to greet the applicant.

Mr Di Costanzo walked past the applicant and turned on the lights in the showroom. He noticed another man standing opposite the front door of the store. That person was Wills. The applicant asked Mr Di Costanzo to let his mate in and said that he had been looking for a parking space. Mr Di Costanzo’s girlfriend…

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 Flint v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Flint v The Queen [2012] VSCA 240
Case: [2012] VSCA 240
Decision Date: 26 September 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Flint, was convicted of aggravated burglary and intentionally causing injury. Flint appealed against the sentence imposed by the court, arguing that the non-parole period was manifestly excessive and that there was a point of principle justifying a reduction. The appeal was heard by the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the non-parole period of the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the severity of the crimes committed, the appellant's criminal history, and any mitigating factors. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was a point of principle that warranted a reduction in the sentence.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The severity of the crimes and the appellant's criminal history justified a substantial sentence. The court also found that there was no point of principle that warranted a reduction in the sentence. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

The High Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the lower court. The non-parole period was deemed to be just and the appeal was dismissed. The court found that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the appellant's criminal history, and that there was no point of principle that warranted a reduction in the sentence.

Orders