Lind v The King - [2025] VSCA 110

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2025 0013

JAMES LIND	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BOYCE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	14 May 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 May 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 110
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Lind (County Court of Victoria, Judge Meredith, 17 December 2024)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal – Aggravated burglary – Intentionally causing injury – Theft – Handling stolen goods – Whether sentences manifestly excessive – Not reasonably arguable that sentences manifestly excessive – Application for leave to appeal refused.

Hogarth v The Queen (2012) 37 VR 658; DPP v Meyers (2014) 44 VR 486, referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicants:		Mr C Hooper
Respondent:		Mr J Shaw with Ms G Tweedy
Solicitors
Applicants:	James Dowsley & Associates
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BOYCE JA:

Introduction

The applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to charges contained in two indictments. The charged offending referable to indictment C2315964.1A (the ‘first indictment’) was committed on 13 October 2022. Indictment N12397227.1 (the ‘second indictment’) related to offending committed on 4 November 2022. The applicant was sentenced on 17 December 2024 as follows.

Charge

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

Indictment C2315964.1A

1 Aggravated burglary[1] 25 years 6 years Base

2 Intentionally causing injury[2] 10 years 2 years 6 months

3 Intentionally causing injury[3] 10 years 2 years 8 months

4 Theft[4] 10 years 3 months Nil

5 Handling stolen goods[5] 15 years 6 months Nil

Total Effective Sentence: 7 years and 2 months’ imprisonment
[1]Contrary to s 77 of the Crimes Act 1958.
[2]Contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1958.
[3]Contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1958.
[4]Contrary to s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958.
[5]Contrary to s 88 of the Crimes Act 1958.

Charge

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

Indictment N12397227.1

1 Prohibited person carrying an imitation firearm[6] 10 years 2 years Nil

2 Common law assault 5 years 18 months 6 months

3 Common law assault 5 years 18 months 6 months

4 Common law assault 5 years 18 months 6 months

5 Threat to destroy property[7] 5 years 18 months 6 months

6 Theft[8] 10 years 1 month Nil

7 Theft[9] 10 years 3 months Nil

8 Reckless conduct endangering serious injury[10] 5 years 2 years 8 months

9 Possession of a drug of dependence[11] 5 years 1 month Nil

10 Carrying firearm while committing an indictable offence[12] 5 years 2 years Base

Total Effective Sentence: 4 years and 8 months’ imprisonment

Other Orders: 2 years of sentence imposed on Indictment N12397227.1 to be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on Indictment C2315964.1A.
[6]Contrary to s 5AB(2) of the Control of Weapons Act 1990.
[7]Contrary to s 198(a) of the Crimes Act 1958.
[8]Contrary to s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958.
[9]Contrary to s 74 of the Crimes Act 1958.
[10]Contrary to…

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 Lind v The King

Details

AGLC: Lind v The King [2025] VSCA 110
Case: [2025] VSCA 110
Decision Date: 23 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Lind v The King was heard before the Court of Appeal. The appellant, Lind, was convicted of multiple offences including aggravated burglary, intentionally causing injury, theft, and handling stolen goods. Lind applied for leave to appeal against the sentences imposed, arguing they were manifestly excessive. The Crown opposed the application, asserting that the sentences were appropriate given the seriousness of the crimes.

The court had to determine whether the sentences were manifestly excessive, which would warrant leave to appeal. The court considered the principles set out in Hogarth v The Queen and DPP v Meyers, which require a strong case for a sentence to be considered manifestly excessive. The court examined the severity of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

After careful consideration, the court found that Lind's application did not present a reasonably arguable case that the sentences were manifestly excessive. The court concluded that the sentences reflected the gravity of the crimes and were consistent with judicial precedents. Consequently, the court refused the application for leave to appeal.

The court did not make any further orders beyond the refusal of leave to appeal.

Orders