Legal Research
Cases
Liddell v The King

Liddell v The King

Case [2024] VSCA 18 5 March 2024

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2022 0188

AARON LIDDELL	Appellant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	McLEISH and WALKER JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 February 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 March 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 18
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2022] VCC 2011 (Judge Tinney)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – One charge of arson with intent to endanger life – Two charges of intentionally causing injury – Total effective sentence 9 years 6 months – Non-parole period 6 years 6 months – Base sentence for arson with intent to endanger life 8 years – Appellant lit fire in occupied house in early hours of morning – Premeditated attack – Use of accelerant on staircase of house – Whether base sentence for arson with intent to endanger life manifestly excessive – Current sentencing practices only one factor to consider – Decided cases reveal disparate circumstances and sentencing outcomes – Offending at upper end of seriousness – Appellant had poor prospects of rehabilitation and high moral culpability – Need for community protection – Base sentence within range – Total effective sentence and non-parole period within range – Appeal dismissed.

Crimes Act 1958, ss 197(2), 197(6).

DPP v Dalgliesh (2017) 262 CLR 428, applied. DPP v Wang [2021] VCC 1570; DPP v Islam [2019] VCC 217; Maher v The Queen [2011] VSCA 136; BBA v The Queen [2010] VSCA 174; DPP v Roberts [2006] VSC 122; DPP v Hayman [2003] VSC 295; R v Matheas [2003] VSC 221, considered.

---

Counsel
Appellant:		Mr D Sala
Respondent:		Mr G Buchhorn
Solicitors
Appellant:	Emma Turnbull Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MCLEISH JA
WALKER JA:

The appellant was sentenced on 16 November 2022 to a total effective sentence of nine years and six months’ imprisonment on three charges to which he had pleaded guilty. The base sentence of eight years’ imprisonment was imposed for the offence of arson with intent to endanger life, contrary to s 197(2) and (6) of the Crimes Act 1958. The overall sentencing disposition was as follows:

Charge	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Arson with intent to endanger life (Crimes Act 1958, ss 197(2) and (6))	15 years	8 years	Base
2	Causing injury intentionally (Crimes Act 1958, s 18)	10 years	4 years	12 months
3	Causing injury intentionally (Crimes Act 1958, s 18)	10 years	1 year 9 months	6 months
Total effective sentence		9 years 6 months
Non-parole period		6 years 6 months
Pre-sentence detention declared		100 days
Section 6AAA statement		Total effective sentence 11 years 6 months Non-parole period 8 years 6 months

Offending

The appellant had been living at a property in Bundoora since mid-2019. The property contained a building, which was leased to a number of tenants who each had individual rooms. It was a two-storey brick house, with three bedrooms, a kitchen 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 Liddell v The King

Details

AGLC: Liddell v The King [2024] VSCA 18
Case: [2024] VSCA 18
Decision Date: 5 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Liddell v The King, the appellant appealed against his sentence for three criminal offences. The appellant was convicted of one charge of arson with intent to endanger life and two charges of intentionally causing injury. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the base sentence for the charge of arson with intent to endanger life was manifestly excessive. The court also needed to consider the total effective sentence and non-parole period to ensure they were within an appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal considered that the base sentence for the charge of arson with intent to endanger life was not manifestly excessive. The court noted that current sentencing practices were only one factor to consider. The court examined previous cases and found that there were disparate circumstances and sentencing outcomes. However, the appellant's offending was at the upper end of seriousness, and he had poor prospects of rehabilitation and high moral culpability. The need for community protection also played a role in the sentencing. The Court of Appeal concluded that the base sentence was within the range and that the total effective sentence and non-parole period were also within an appropriate range.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, confirming the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court held that the base sentence for the charge of arson with intent to endanger life was not manifestly excessive, and the total effective sentence and non-parole period were within an appropriate range. The court noted that the appellant's offending was at the upper end of seriousness, and the need for community protection and the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation and moral culpability were also relevant factors in the sentencing. The appeal was dismissed, and the sentence imposed by the trial judge was confirmed.

No further orders were made by the Court of Appeal.

Orders