Legal Research
Cases
Greatorex v The Queen

Greatorex v The Queen

Case [2016] VSCA 136 10 June 2016

Appeal

Sentencing

Combined sentence

Community Correction Order

Parsimony

Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342

Melnikas v The Queen [2016] VSCA 112

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2015 0259
ALEXANDER GREATOREX	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH, SANTAMARIA and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 May 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 June 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 136
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2015] VCC 1568 (Judge Lewitan)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal – Recklessly causing serious injury – Combined sentence of term of imprisonment of 15 months and Community Correction Order of 2 years – Whether length of term of imprisonment made combined sentence manifestly excessive – Whether length of term of imprisonment infringed principle of parsimony – Combined sentence to be viewed in its totality – Not helpful to compare length of combined sentence with term of imprisonment with non-parole period – Individual sentencing considerations not to be assigned to different components of combined sentence – Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342 and Melnikas v The Queen [2016] VSCA 112 considered – Sentencing Act 1991, s 5(3), s 5(4C) – Prior criminal matter – Moderately serious injury to victim – Appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence – Combined custodial term and CCO pursuant to Sentencing Act 1991 s 44(2) – Circumstances in which warning should be given pursuant to Criminal Procedure Act 2009 s 281(3) that part of the combined sentence might be increased in the event of resentencing.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P F Tehan QC with Ms R Waters	Pica Criminal Lawyers
For the Crown	Ms F L Dalziel	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA

SANTAMARIA JA
BEACH JA:

This is an appeal against a sentence that combined a term of imprisonment with a Community Correction Order (‘the combined sentence’). The appellant complains that the term of imprisonment was manifestly excessive and infringed the principle of parsimony when combined with the duration of the Community Correction Order (‘CCO’).

On 6 November 2015, the appellant pleaded guilty to one charge of recklessly causing serious injury. On 30 November 2015, the appellant was sentenced as follows:[1]
[1]R v Greatorex [2015] VCC 1568 (‘Reasons’).

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Recklessly causing serious injury [Crimes Act 1958 s 17]	15 years’ imprisonment [Crimes Act 1958 s 17]	15 months’ imprisonment combined with a 2 year Community Correction Order	-
Total Effective Sentence:		15 months’ imprisonment and 2 year Community Correction Order
Non-Parole Period:		-
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		-
6AAA Statement:		3 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years.
Other orders: Forensic sample order pursuant to s 464ZF of the Crimes Act 1958. CCO conditions including: supervision and treatment conditions; 200 hours unpaid community work; alcohol exclusion for 2 years.

On 2 March 2016, the appellant was granted leave to appeal on the ground that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive as the period of 15 months’ imprisonment offended the principle of parsimony when combined with the duration of the CCO. The appellant…

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 Greatorex v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Greatorex v The Queen [2016] VSCA 136
Case: [2016] VSCA 136
Decision Date: 10 June 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Greatorex v The Queen involved an appeal against a sentence imposed by the County Court of Victoria. The appellant, Greatorex, had been found guilty of recklessly causing serious injury and was sentenced to a combined term of imprisonment of 15 months and a Community Correction Order (CCO) of 2 years. The central issue in the appeal was whether the length of the imprisonment term rendered the combined sentence manifestly excessive and whether it contravened the principle of parsimony. Additionally, the court considered whether the combined sentence should be viewed in its entirety or if the imprisonment term's length should be compared against the non-parole period. The case referenced previous decisions such as Boulton v The Queen and Melnikas v The Queen, both of which addressed the interpretation of the Sentencing Act 1991 and the principles guiding sentencing.

The court examined whether the individual sentencing considerations could be assigned to different components of the combined sentence. It was argued that it was not beneficial to compare the length of the combined sentence with the imprisonment term to the non-parole period. The court also needed to determine if a warning should have been given under the Criminal Procedure Act 2009, section 281(3), that part of the combined sentence might be increased in the event of resentencing. The appeal was dismissed as the court found that the combined sentence was not manifestly excessive and did not infringe upon the principle of parsimony when viewed in its entirety.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the need to view the combined sentence as a whole, rather than dissecting its components in isolation. It noted that the principles of sentencing, as outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991, require a balanced approach that considers all aspects of the sentence together. The court found that the length of the imprisonment term did not make the combined sentence manifestly excessive and that the principle of parsimony was not contravened. The court also ruled that there was no requirement to provide a warning under section 281(3) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 regarding potential increases in the combined sentence upon resentencing. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the original sentence imposed by the County Court.

The final orders of the court confirmed the dismissal of the appeal and upheld the original sentence of a term of imprisonment of 15 months and a Community Correction Order of 2 years. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering the combined sentence as a comprehensive whole, rather than evaluating its individual components separately, in line with established sentencing principles.

Orders