Jacobs v The Queen - [2011] VSCA 238

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 014
RYAN LEE JACOBS	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent
S APCR 2010 015
BRENT JAMES ROSS	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	HARPER and HANSEN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 August 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	18 August 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 238
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Jacobs and Ross (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Pilgrim, 25 January 2010

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Intentionally causing serious injury – Appellants pleaded guilty as principals – Sentences of five years’ imprisonment with non-parole periods of three years appropriate – Co-offenders later pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting appellants and sentenced by different judge to two years and six months’ imprisonment wholly suspended for three years, and three years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 12 months respectively – Parity – Appellants’ offending more serious than co-offenders but did not justify extent of disparity – Appellants re-sentenced to four years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of two years and six months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant Jacobs	Mr G M Hughan	Balmer & Associates
For the Appellant Ross	Mr J D Williams	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mrs C M Quin	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

HARPER JA:

I agree with Hansen JA.

HANSEN JA:

The appellants, Brent James Ross and Ryan Lee Jacobs, each pleaded guilty to one count of intentionally causing serious injury, which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. Following pleas in mitigation in the County Court, each appellant was sentenced by the same judge on 25 January 2010 to five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.

Each appellant now appeals against his sentence on the sole ground that the sentence offends the principle of parity having regard to the sentences subsequently imposed by a different judge on the co-offenders Jamie Pettingill and Jay Young. Pettingill was sentenced to two and a half years’ imprisonment, wholly suspended for three years, while Young was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 12 months.

Background

The offending stemmed from an altercation at the Loft nightclub in Lonsdale Street, Melbourne in the early hours of Sunday 19 April 2009. Jacobs (then aged 22), Ross (then aged 20), Young (then aged 24), and Pettingill (then aged 20) were part of a group[1] of some 12 people who were out celebrating a friend’s 18^th birthday. The victim, Benjamin Rendell, was also out celebrating his 22^nd birthday with a group of people. Both groups had consumed alcohol before arriving at the club. A misunderstanding on the dance floor led to Jacobs’ then girlfriend pulling Rendell’s girlfriend’s hair. A scuffle broke out between them, with Jacobs, Rendell, Ross and
[1]The group included a further co-offender who was dealt with in the Children’s Court. It is not necessary to say anything more about him.

Ross’s girlfriend all becoming involved. Security staff intervened and…

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 Jacobs v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jacobs v The Queen [2011] VSCA 238
Case: [2011] VSCA 238
Decision Date: 18 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jacobs v The Queen, the appellants, who were found guilty of intentionally causing serious injury, challenged the sentences imposed on them. The appellants pleaded guilty as principals to their respective charges and were sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with non-parole periods of three years each. Their co-offenders, who pleaded guilty to aiding and abetting the appellants, were sentenced to lesser terms of imprisonment by a different judge. The disparity in sentences between the appellants and their co-offenders prompted this appeal.

The primary legal issue for the court to decide was whether the disparity in sentencing between the appellants and their co-offenders was justified. The appellants argued that their sentences were disproportionately harsher than those of their co-offenders, despite their more direct involvement in the crime. The court had to consider the principles of parity in sentencing and assess whether the severity of the appellants’ offending warranted the extent of the disparity.

The court held that while the appellants’ offending was more serious than that of their co-offenders, it did not justify the extent of the sentencing disparity. The principle of parity in sentencing requires that similarly situated offenders receive similar sentences. Although the appellants’ direct involvement in the crime was greater, the court found that the sentences imposed on the co-offenders were appropriate. As a result, the court re-sentenced the appellants to four years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months each, to align with the sentences of their co-offenders.

The final orders of the court were to allow each appeal and re-sentence each appellant to four years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and six months. This decision ensured that the sentences imposed were consistent with the principle of parity in sentencing, reflecting the relative seriousness of the offending and the roles of the participants in the crime.

Orders

Orders of the court

I would allow each appeal and re-sentence each appellant to four years and six months’ imprisonment. I would fix a non-parole period of two years and six months in each case.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.