Harrison v The Queen - [2013] VSCA 6

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

CORI JI HARRISON	S APCR 2012 0235
	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

- - -

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE

- - -

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P and WHELAN JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 JANUARY 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 JANUARY 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSCA 6
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Harrison, (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Douglas, Date of Sentence 20 September 2012)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Attempted Theft (x2), Theft (x4), Make Threat to Kill, Attempted Armed Robbery, Burglary, Intentionally Damaging Property – Sentence of 3 years 4 months imprisonment with non-parole period of 20 months – Whether sentencing judge erred by failing to have proper regard to the principles concerning the sentencing of a young offender – Whether sentence is manifestly excessive in all the circumstances – Leave refused – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J McLoughlin	Greg Thomas Barrister & Solicitor
For the Crown	Mr B Kissane	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WHELAN JA:

On 20 September 2012 the applicant was sentenced by a judge in the County Court to a total effective term of imprisonment of 3 years and 4 months with a non-parole period of 1 year 8 months. He was sentenced to that term on a series of charges arising out of four offending episodes in early April 2012. At the time of the offending and at the time of sentence he was 19 years of age. The sentence imposed was a sentence to adult imprisonment.

A total of nine offences were committed in the course of the four episodes.

In the first episode the applicant attempted to steal milk and cigarettes from a service station at Seaford on 2 April 2012, and he and a co-offender successfully stole petrol from that service station. When challenged by a female service station attendant while trying to leave with the milk and cigarettes, the applicant threatened her saying ‘I’m going to kill you, bitch’. The offences arising out of this episode were attempted theft, theft, and making a threat to kill.

The second episode occurred approximately 14 hours after the first, still on 2 April 2012, and involved a retail business in Carrum Downs. The applicant and two co-offenders walked into the business. One co-offender then went to wait in the car while the applicant and the other went to the furniture section of the store. Each of the applicant and the co-offender then attempted to walk out of the store carrying an LCD television set. The co-offender succeeded in reaching the car outside with his television. The applicant dropped his when challenged by staff. The applicant then went to the register, brandished a knife at staff, and demanded money. When a female staff member told him that there was none, he threw a statue at her before leaving. The offences committed…

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 Harrison v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Harrison v The Queen [2013] VSCA 6
Case: [2013] VSCA 6
Decision Date: 31 JANUARY 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Harrison, sought leave to appeal against his sentence, imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria, for multiple criminal offences including attempted theft, theft, making a threat to kill, attempted armed robbery, burglary, and intentionally damaging property. The appellant was sentenced to a total of 3 years and 4 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 months. The central legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred by not adequately considering the principles applicable to sentencing young offenders and whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive given the circumstances of the case.

The court examined the sentencing principles relevant to young offenders, noting that while the sentencing judge did consider the appellant's age and background, the court found no error in the judge's consideration of these factors. The court highlighted that the sentencing judge appropriately balanced the seriousness of the crimes, the appellant's criminal history, and his potential for rehabilitation. The court further found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the cumulative effect of the offences and the need for general deterrence.

In refusing the appellant leave to appeal, the court concluded that there was no point of principle of general importance that required further determination by a higher court. The court affirmed the sentence, emphasising the importance of proportionality and the need to consider the gravity of the offences alongside the appellant's age and background. The court found that the sentence was well within the range of appropriate penalties for the crimes committed.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was refused and the original sentence of 3 years and 4 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 months, was upheld.

Orders