Legal Research
Cases
Maddocks v The Queen

Maddocks v The Queen

Case [2020] VSCA 47 13 March 2020

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2019 0056

DAVID HAYDEN MADDOCKS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BEACH and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	11 March 2020
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 March 2020
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSCA 47
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2019] VCC 188 (Judge Stuart)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Arson – Manifest excess – Whether sentence of imprisonment of 6 years with non-parole period of 4 years manifestly excessive – Plea of guilty – Significant prior convictions – Disadvantaged background – Sentence towards upper end of sentencing range – Not reasonably arguable that sentence manifestly excessive – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr J Connolly	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Respondent	Mr P Bourke	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA

WEINBERG JA:

On 5 February 2019, the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of arson, contrary to s 197 of the Crimes Act 1958. The maximum term of imprisonment for arson is 15 years.

On 22 February 2019, the applicant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 6 years, with a non-parole period of 4 years. Pre-sentence detention of 324 days was declared, and the judge stated that but for the applicant’s plea of guilty he would have sentenced him to a total effective sentence of 8 years, with a non-parole period of 5 years.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against his sentence, contending that the head sentence and the non-parole period are both manifestly excessive.

Circumstances of the offending

The applicant’s offending occurred on 4 April 2018. Mr Michael Becher was the primary victim of the offending.

Mr Becher worked as a contractor, restoring motor vehicles, from a property he leased in Lyndhurst (‘the property’). A large shed was located on the property, where Mr Becher performed the restoration work. Residential premises were also located on the property, some 100 metres from the shed. The house was a four-bedroom weatherboard house. At the time of the offence, Mr Becher was living in the house with two housemates.

Approximately 5 years prior to the offending, Mr Becher and two of the applicant’s sisters entered an agreement whereby Mr Becher permitted the applicant’s sisters to agist their horses on the property for $25 per week. Over time, the applicant’s sisters fell behind in the agistment fees. There were disagreements between Mr Becher and the applicant’s sisters and, after some years, Mr Becher sold the horses to another person.

The applicant’s sisters were aggrieved by the sale, and the matter was reported to the police. Mr Becher explained his reason for selling the horses to police as being ‘to get recompense for the agistment fees that were outstanding’.[1] Nothing further then came of the matter, so far as the complaint to the police was concerned.
[1]DPP v Maddocks [2019] VCC 188 (‘Reasons’), [6].

On 24 January 2018, the…

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 Maddocks v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Maddocks v The Queen [2020] VSCA 47
Case: [2020] VSCA 47
Decision Date: 13 March 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Maddocks, was convicted of arson and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of six years, with a non-parole period of four years. The appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive. The High Court was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly excessive by failing to have regard to all relevant sentencing principles, and whether the sentence was so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of the community. The Court noted that the appellant had pleaded guilty, had significant prior convictions, and came from a disadvantaged background. The Court held that the sentence was towards the upper end of the sentencing range, but not so disproportionate as to be manifestly excessive. The Court held that it was not reasonably arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive, and the application for leave to appeal was refused. The Court found that the primary judge had appropriately considered all relevant sentencing principles, including the appellant's guilty plea, criminal history, and disadvantaged background. The Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and the appeal was dismissed.

Orders