Matthew Robinson v The Queen - [2016] VSCA 225

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0130

MATTHEW ROBINSON	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WEINBERG and HANSEN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	2 September 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 September 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 225	First revision: 19 September 2016, catchwords
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Robinson (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Gucciardo, 8 June 2016)

---

CRIMINAL LAW –Application for leave to appeal – Sentence – Applicant convicted of trafficking in a drug of dependence and possession of a drug of dependence – Sentenced to a total of 12 months’ imprisonment and 12 month CCO – Whether sentencing judge erred in several respects in course of sentencing – Whether sentencing judge appropriately applied Renzella principle – Whether sentencing judge imposed an unduly harsh sentence in comparison to co-offender – No error made by sentencing judge – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr T Alexander	Garde-Wilson Lawyers
For the Crown	Ms D I Piekusis	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WEINBERG JA
HANSEN JA:

The applicant, Matthew Robinson, aged 33, pleaded guilty to one charge of trafficking in a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) and was sentenced to a term of 12 months’ imprisonment, combined with a 12 month Community Correction Order (‘CCO’). The conditions set out in the CCO included 250 hours of unpaid community work as well as treatment and assessment for drug use.

The applicant’s brother, Jamie Robinson, pleaded guilty to two charges of trafficking in a drug of dependence (methylamphetamine) and one charge of possession of a drug of dependence. He was sentenced on the same day, and by the same judge, to a total effective sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment, combined with a 12 month CCO.

The applicant initially sought leave to appeal against sentence upon a single ground, with two components. He complained of a failure on the part of the sentencing judge correctly to apply the ‘Renzella principle’[1] to his situation, and also that he had been treated unduly harshly, by comparison with his brother, whose offending was said to be significantly worse in several key respects.
[1]R v Renzella [1997] 2 VR 88.

Subsequently, in an amended written case, he formulated his proposed grounds of appeal as follows:

1.The learned sentencing judge erred by failing to correctly apply the Renzella principle to the Applicant’s sentence and/or by failing to reflect the subjective differences relevant to parity between the applicant and [Jamie Robinson].
2.The learned sentencing judge erred by imposing a sentence which was unduly harsh on the Appellant (sic) compared to the co-offender Petersen.

The reference to ‘the co-offender Petersen’ was to Adam Petersen, who was sentenced, some six weeks or so after the applicant and his brother, to a total effective sentence of 16 months’ imprisonment combined with a 12 month CCO requiring 150 hours of community work.

At the commencement of the hearing before this Court, counsel 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 Matthew Robinson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Matthew Robinson v The Queen [2016] VSCA 225
Case: [2016] VSCA 225
Decision Date: 19 September 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Matthew Robinson versus The Queen involved an application for leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by the court. Mr Robinson was convicted of trafficking in a drug of dependence and possession of a drug of dependence. He was sentenced to a total of 12 months' imprisonment and a 12-month community corrections order. The primary issue for the court was whether the sentencing judge made any errors in the course of sentencing, particularly in relation to the application of the Renzella principle and whether the sentence was unduly harsh when compared to that of a co-offender.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge appropriately applied the Renzella principle, which pertains to the principle that the sentence for a lesser offence should not exceed the sentence for a greater offence. The court found that the sentencing judge had correctly applied the principle and had appropriately balanced the factors relevant to the sentencing process. Additionally, the court examined whether the sentence was unduly harsh when compared to that of a co-offender. The court determined that the sentencing judge had taken into account all relevant factors and had imposed a sentence that was commensurate with the gravity of the offence and the circumstances of the case.

In light of the above considerations, the court found that no error had been made by the sentencing judge. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was refused. The sentence imposed on Mr Robinson remained in place, and the matter concluded with the court upholding the original sentencing decision.

Orders