Nathan Chatters v The Queen - [2019] VSCA 309

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2019 0230

NATHAN CHATTERS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 December 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	17 December 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 309
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Chatters [2019] VCC 1716 (Judge Gucciardo)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Recklessly causing injury and common assault – Total effective sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of one year and seven months – Whether parity principle infringed – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Ms G F Connelly	Greg Thomas Barrister & Solicitor
For the Respondent	Mr C B Boyce QC	Ms A Hogan, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
T FORREST JA:

Introduction

Both the applicant and Fallon Vorbach (‘Vorbach’) were tried in the County Court on an indictment which charged them with home invasion, charge 1; intentionally causing injury to Shayne Talbot (‘Talbot’), charge 2; alternatively, recklessly intentionally causing injury to Talbot, charge 3; and common assault to Jacqui Francese-Naylor (‘Francese-Naylor’), charge 4.

Ultimately, the jury found both the applicant and Vorbach guilty of charge 3, recklessly causing injury, and charge 4, common assault.[1] The jury also acquitted the applicant on the charge of home invasion, but could not agree on a verdict on that charge with respect to Vorbach. Subsequently, Vorbach pleaded guilty to a separate indictment which charged him with aggravated burglary arising out of the same circumstances which had given rise to the charge of home invasion.
[1]In light of the verdicts on charge 3, the judge directed verdicts of acquittal on charge 2.

Following pleas in mitigation conducted on 15 October 2019, on 18 October 2019 the judge sentenced the applicant to two years’ imprisonment on the charge of recklessly causing injury (charge 3), and to one year’s imprisonment on the charge of common assault (charge 4). Six months of the sentence on charge 4 was ordered to be served cumulatively with that on charge 3, leading to a total effective sentence of two years and six months’ imprisonment, upon which the judge fixed a non-parole period of 19 months.

Vorbach, too, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment on the charge of recklessly causing injury (charge 3), and to one year’s imprisonment on the charge of common assault (charge 4). Additionally, Vorbach was sentenced to three years and six months’ imprisonment for aggravated burglary, that sentence becoming the base sentence. The judge ordered that two months of the sentence on charge 3, and four months of the sentence on charge 4, be served cumulatively with the base sentence,[2] leading to a total effective sentence of four years’ imprisonment, upon which a non-parole period of two years and eight months was fixed.
[2]In his oral reasons, the judge ostensibly directed that four months of the sentence on charge 3, and two months of the sentence…

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 Nathan Chatters v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Nathan Chatters v The Queen [2019] VSCA 309
Case: [2019] VSCA 309
Decision Date: 17 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Nathan Chatters against The Queen involved an appeal against his sentence for recklessly causing injury and common assault. The appellant, Chatters, was convicted and sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of two years and six months, with a non-parole period of one year and seven months. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was excessive and whether it breached the parity principle.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed on Chatters was manifestly excessive and whether it contravened the parity principle. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionate to the offences committed and that it failed to comply with the principle of parity, which requires sentences for similar offences to be comparable. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances and did not breach the parity principle.

The High Court, in its reasoning, found that the sentence imposed on Chatters did not infringe the parity principle. The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. It concluded that the sentence was within the range of reasonable sentences that could be imposed for the offences. The court also determined that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was proportionate to the gravity of the offences and took into account the need for punishment and rehabilitation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and leave to appeal was refused.

Orders