Lord v The Queen - [2017] VSCA 29

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0194

AARON LORD	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---
DETERMINED ON THE PAPERS
---

JUDGES:	TATE and PRIEST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 February 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 29
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Lord [2016] VCC 1259 (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Smallwood, 25 August 2016)

---
ELECTION TO RENEW APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE
DETERMINED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL PURSUANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009
---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Election to renew application for leave to appeal against sentence – Applicant sentenced to five years and seven months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and nine months on one charge each of armed robbery, making a threat to kill, intentionally causing injury and false imprisonment – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Whether trial judge erred in classifying false imprisonment as one of worst possible examples of this offence – Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
No appearances

TATE JA

PRIEST JA:

Introduction

On 25 August 2016, the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of armed robbery,[1] one charge of making a threat to kill,[2] one charge of intentionally causing injury[3] and one charge of false imprisonment.[4]
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 75A. The maximum sentence is 25 years’ imprisonment.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 20. The maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment.
[3]Crimes Act 1958, s 18. The maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment.
[4]Common law. By virtue of s 320 of the Crimes Act 1958, the maximum sentence is 10 years’ imprisonment.

The judge imposed a total effective sentence of five years and seven months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and nine months’ imprisonment, in accordance with the following table:

Charge Offence Sentence Cumulation

1 Armed robbery 3 years 3 months

2 Threat to kill 1 year 2 months

3 Intentionally cause injury 1 year 2 months

4 False imprisonment 5 years Base

Total effective sentence 5 years and 7 months’ imprisonment

Non-parole period 3 years and 9 months imprisonment

Pre-sentence detention 285 days

Section 6AAA statement 8 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months

The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence on two grounds:

1. That the total effective sentence imposed was manifestly excessive having regard to the following particulars:
(A) The nature and gravity of the offence including the injuries to the victim and the applicant’s personal circumstances such as age, and mental health condition namely, borderline anti-social personality disorder.
(B) The principles in Karpinski and Renzella cases.
(C) That the sentence imposed on the armed robbery offence having regard to nature and gravity and the personal circumstances of the applicant was excessive.

2. That his Honour erred in classifying the false imprisonment as one of the worst possible examples.

Weinberg JA refused the application for…

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 Lord v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Aaron Lord v The Queen [2017] VSCA 29
Case: [2017] VSCA 29
Decision Date: 24 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Lord, sought leave to appeal against his sentence in the High Court of Australia. Lord was sentenced to five years and seven months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years and nine months on one count of armed robbery, one count of making a threat to kill, one count of intentionally causing injury, and one count of false imprisonment. The central issue for the High Court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and if the trial judge erred in classifying the false imprisonment as one of the worst possible examples of this offence.

The High Court considered whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and if the trial judge erred in classifying the false imprisonment as one of the worst possible examples of this offence. The Court noted that the sentence was within the range of sentences imposed by the trial judge for similar offences. The Court found that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant factors and did not err in classifying the false imprisonment as one of the worst possible examples of this offence.

The High Court determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge did not err in classifying the false imprisonment as one of the worst possible examples of this offence. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against the sentence was refused. The High Court's decision reinforces the importance of considering all relevant factors when sentencing an offender and ensures that the trial judge's classification of an offence is not easily challenged on appeal.

Orders