Legal Research
Cases
Galea v The Queen

Galea v The Queen

Case [2020] VSCA 69 25 March 2020

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0026

CHARLIE GALEA	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	T FORREST and OSBORN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25 March 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	25 March 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 69
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Galea (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Meredith, 9 May 2018)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Armed robbery – Total effective sentence of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months – Co-offender sentenced in Koori Court – Co-offender sentenced to 2 year Community Correction Order with 250 hours of community work – Whether principle of parity infringed – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – No unjustifiable disparity between sentences – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr M S Habib	Peter Monagle Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr J Gullaci	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

T FORREST JA
OSBORN JA:

Summary

On 9 May 2018 in the County Court at Melbourne, the applicant pleaded guilty to armed robbery. On that day, he was sentenced to three years and three months’ imprisonment with a minimum term before parole eligibility of one year and eight months.

His co-accused in the armed robbery offence was Jack Ryan. He was not sentenced until 22 October 2019. He was placed on a two-year Community Correction Order (‘CCO’) with various core conditions, one of which being that he perform 250 hours of community work.

The table below sets out these sentences in more detail.

Charlie Galea

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence

1
Armed robbery
25 years’ imprisonment 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment

Total effective sentence: 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment

Non-parole period: 1 year and 8 months

Pre-sentence detention period: 14 days

Section 6AAA statement: 4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months

Other relevant orders: Forfeiture order, forensic sample order

Jack Ryan

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence

1
Armed robbery
25 years’ imprisonment
2-year CCO with the following core conditions:

·     200 hours of community work

·     Supervision

·     Treatment and assessment for drug abuse and dependency

·     Mental health assessment or treatment

·     Offender behaviour programs

·     Judicial monitoring

Total effective sentence: 2 years’ CCO

Non-parole period: N/A

Pre-sentence detention period: N/A

Section 6AAA statement: 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months

Other relevant orders: Forfeiture order, forensic sample order

On 4 March 2020 — that is, nearly 22 months after the applicant was sentenced — he filed an application for an extension of time to lodge a notice for leave to appeal. This was granted by the Deputy Registrar of this Court.

Given that the applicant has been eligible for parole for about two months, this application has been listed with expedition.

The sole ground of appeal is expressed as follows:

The sentence imposed on the applicant is too disparate when compared…

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 Galea v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Galea v The Queen [2020] VSCA 69
Case: [2020] VSCA 69
Decision Date: 25 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Galea, appealed against his sentence for armed robbery, arguing that the total effective sentence of 3 years and 3 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months, was manifestly excessive and that the principle of parity was infringed by the differing sentences handed down to him and his co-offender, who was sentenced in the Koori Court to a 2 year Community Correction Order with 250 hours of community work. The Court of Appeal considered the appropriate principles for sentencing and whether there was any unjustifiable disparity between the sentences.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether there was an unjustifiable disparity between the sentences of the appellant and his co-offender. The court examined the sentencing principles and whether the sentence was within the range of appropriate sentences for the crime committed. The court also considered the principle of parity and whether there was an unjustifiable disparity between the sentences of co-offenders.

The Court of Appeal held that there was no unjustifiable disparity between the sentences, and the principle of parity was not infringed. The court found that the sentence was within the range of appropriate sentences for the crime committed and that the sentencing judge had properly considered the circumstances of the case. The court noted that the co-offender had been sentenced in the Koori Court, which has a different approach to sentencing, and that this difference did not amount to an unjustifiable disparity. The court also found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the appellant’s appeal should be dismissed.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal to the High Court. The court held that there was no unjustifiable disparity between the sentences, and the principle of parity was not infringed. The sentence was within the range of appropriate sentences for the crime committed, and the sentencing judge had properly considered the circumstances of the case. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the appeal should be dismissed.

Orders