Jarrod Vincent v The Queen - [2016] VSCA 211

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0080

JARROD VINCENT	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WEINBERG and HANSEN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	2 September 2016
DATE OF ORDERS:	2 September 2016
DATE OF REASONS:	7 September 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 211
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Vincent (Unreported, County Court of Victoria. Judge Gucciardo, 17 March 2016)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Applicant pleaded guilty to trafficking small quantities of methylamphetamine – Sentencing judge erred in several respects in course of sentencing – Crown concession properly made – Applicant resentenced.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr B Nibbs	Valos Black & Associates
For the Crown	Ms D Piekusis	Mr J Cain, solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WEINBERG JA
HANSEN JA:

On 11 December 2015, the applicant, now aged 35, pleaded guilty in the County Court to trafficking methylamphetamine, possessing a drug of dependence, handling stolen goods and, as a prohibited person, being in possessing of a firearm. He also pleaded guilty to two summary charges, one of possessing a prohibited weapon, and one of possessing cartridge ammunition without a licence. He was sentenced in accordance with the following table:

Charges on

Indictment

C1409819.D
Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1. Trafficking drug of dependence [s 71AC Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981]
15 years

imprisonment

4 years’

imprisonment

Base

Sentence

2. Possess drug of dependence [s 73 Drugs, Poisons or Controlled Substances Act 1981]
Trafficking purpose excluded: 30 penalty units maximum or 1 year imprisonment

Trafficking penalty units purpose not excluded: 400 penalty units maximum or 5 years imprisonment
2 months’ imprisonment Nil

3.
Handle Stolen Goods [s 88(1)

Crimes Act 1958]
15 years imprisonment 9 months’ imprisonment 2 months

4.
Prohibited person possess firearm

[s 5(1) Firearms Act 1996]
1200 penalty units or 10 years imprisonment
9 months’

imprisonment
1 month

Related

Summary

Charge 5020
Possess Prohibited Weapon without Exemption/ Approval [s 5AA Control of Weapons Act 1990]
240 penalty

units or 2 years imprisonment

1 month

imprisonment
Nil

Related Summary Charge 5021 Possess Cartridge Ammunition without licence [s 124(1) Firearms Act 1996] 40 penalty units 1 month imprisonment Nil

TotalEffectiveSentence: But for the undertaking to assist the total effective sentence is 4 years and 3 months’ imprisonment. Pursuant to s. 5(2AB) of the Sentencing Act 1991 the court considered the undertaking and reduced the total effective sentence to 24 months and a Community Corrections Order for 2 years with 100 hours unpaid community work, supervision and treatment and rehabilitation conditions.

Non-ParolePeriod: N/A

Pre-Sentence detention declaration pursuant to s 18(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991: 125 days

6AAAdeclaration: 5 years and 6 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years and 6 months

The sentence imposed on charge 1 is recorded in the table above as having been four years’ imprisonment. The total effective sentence is recorded as having been four years and three months’…

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 Jarrod Vincent v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Jarrod Vincent v The Queen [2016] VSCA 211
Case: [2016] VSCA 211
Decision Date: 7 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jarrod Vincent, the applicant, was involved in a dispute with the Crown regarding the sentence imposed upon him. He had pleaded guilty to trafficking small quantities of methylamphetamine. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with reviewing the application for leave to appeal the sentence handed down by the lower court. The central legal issues revolved around whether the sentencing judge had erred in various respects during the sentencing process and whether the Crown's concession was appropriately made. The applicant argued that the sentencing judge had failed to properly consider several mitigating factors and had misapplied the principles of sentencing, leading to an excessive sentence.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge had indeed erred and whether the Crown's concession was properly made. The court found that there were several errors in the sentencing process. The sentencing judge had not adequately considered the mitigating factors presented by the applicant and had misapplied sentencing principles. The Crown's concession, however, was deemed appropriate as it aligned with the principles of justice and reflected the circumstances of the case accurately. The court determined that the applicant should be resentenced, taking into account the correct application of sentencing principles and the proper consideration of mitigating factors.

Given the errors identified in the original sentencing, the court ordered that the applicant be resentenced. The High Court emphasised the importance of accurate and fair sentencing, highlighting that the original sentence did not appropriately reflect the principles of justice. The court's decision underscored the necessity for sentencing judges to thoroughly consider all mitigating factors and correctly apply sentencing principles to ensure that sentences are just and proportionate to the offence committed. The final orders of the court mandated that the applicant be resentenced by the lower court, taking into account the errors identified in the original sentencing process.

Orders