Legal Research
Cases
Levy v The Queen

Levy v The Queen

Case [2020] VSCA 44 11 March 2020

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0219

CRAIG JONATHON LEVY	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and HARGRAVE JJA and CROUCHER AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 February 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 March 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 44
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2018] VSC 567 (Tinney J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty – Victim died from injuries sustained in course of assault by applicant and two co-offenders related to overdue rent – Applicant cooperated with authorities and gave undertaking to give evidence against main offender – Sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period four years and six months – Main offender sentenced to 11 years’ imprisonment – Whether principle of parity infringed – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal allowed – Resentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period three years and six months – R v Johnston (2008) 186 A Crim R 345 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr C Carr	Pica Criminal Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr B Kissane QC with Ms K Crennan	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA:

I agree with Hargrave JA, whose reasons for judgment I have had the advantage of reading in draft.

HARGRAVE JA:

On 25 October 2017, three men were involved in a vicious assault on Ramis Jonuzi. Mr Jonuzi died as a result of injuries inflicted on him during the attack. Mr Jonuzi was 36 years old when he died. Ultimately, all three men pleaded guilty to his manslaughter.

The applicant, Craig Levy, pleaded guilty in the trial division to one charge of manslaughter. He was convicted and sentenced as set out below:

Charge on Indictment

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1. Manslaughter [s 5 of the Crimes Act 1958]
20 years [s 5 of

the Crimes Act 1958]
7 years and 6 months N/A

Total Effective Sentence: 7 years and 6 months’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period: 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment

6AAA Statement: 12 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months

One of Levy’s co-offenders, Ryan Smart, also pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was sentenced in the trial division on the same day as follows:

Charge on Indictment

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1. Manslaughter [s 5 of the Crimes Act 1958]
20 years [s 5 of the Crimes Act

1958]
9 years N/A

Total Effective Sentence: 9 years’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period: 6 years’ imprisonment

6AAA Statement: 11 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months

The third co-offender, Jason Colton, who initiated the assault on Mr Jonuzi and carried out most of the violence, pleaded not guilty to a murder charge. After a successful no case submission at the conclusion of the prosecution case, Colton pleaded guilty to manslaughter. He was then sentenced in the following manner.

Charge on Indictment

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1. Manslaughter…

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 Levy v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Craig Jonathon Levy v The Queen [2020] VSCA 44
Case: [2020] VSCA 44
Decision Date: 11 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Levy v The Queen involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant, Levy, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The victim died from injuries sustained during an assault carried out by Levy and two co-offenders due to overdue rent. Levy cooperated with the authorities and agreed to testify against the main offender. The sentencing court had imposed a sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years and six months. The main offender received an 11-year sentence. Levy argued that the sentencing principle of parity was violated by the disparity between his sentence and that of the main offender.

The court was required to determine whether the principle of parity had been breached in the sentencing process. This principle, derived from the case of R v Johnston (2008) 186 A Crim R 345, stipulates that sentences imposed on co-offenders for the same criminal conduct should be comparable, taking into account the relative culpability of each offender. The court needed to assess if the disparity between Levy’s sentence and that of the main offender was justified under the circumstances. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the sentencing judge adequately balanced the principles of general deterrence, specific deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation.

The court found that the sentencing principle of parity had indeed been infringed. The disparity between Levy’s sentence and that of the main offender was not sufficiently justified, given Levy’s cooperation with authorities and his lesser role in the assault. The court recognised Levy’s cooperation and his undertaking to testify against the main offender as mitigating factors. However, it noted that these factors alone did not sufficiently justify the significant difference in the sentences. The court allowed the appeal and resentenced Levy to five years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months. This decision aimed to uphold the principle of parity and ensure a more balanced approach to sentencing co-offenders.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal be allowed, the original sentence be quashed, and Levy be resentenced to five years and six months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months. The court's decision underscores the importance of parity in sentencing co-offenders and highlights the need for careful consideration of all relevant factors in determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders