Parks v The King - [2025] VSCA 84

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0088

SCOTT PARKS	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	TAYLOR JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 March 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	28 April 2025
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2025] VSCA 84
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2024] VCC 408 (Judge Cannon)

---

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL AGAINST SENTENCE DETERMINED BY A SINGLE JUDGE PURSUANT TO S 315 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2009

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Firearms, drug trafficking and proceeds of crime offending – Applicant on parole for similar offending at time offences committed – Significant and relevant criminal history – Statutory presumptions of cumulation and order of sentence – Totality – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Sentence within range – Application for leave to appeal refused.

Sentencing Act 1991, ss 6E, 15 and 16(3B).

---

Counsel
Applicants:		Mr P Smallwood
Respondent:		Mr J Dickie
Solicitors
Applicants:	Ellinghaus Weill Lawyers & Consultants
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

TAYLOR JA:

On 28 February 2024 the applicant pleaded guilty to a number of firearm and drug related offences. On 4 April 2024 he was sentenced as follows.

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Fail to surrender firearm related item on service of firearm prohibition order[1]	5 years	6 months	Nil
2	Traffick in a drug of dependence – commercial quantity[2]	25 years	7 years	Base
3	Traffick in a drug of dependence – commercial quantity[3]	25 years	6 years	12 months
4	Traffick in a drug of dependence[4]	15 years	3 years	Nil
5	Possess a drug of dependence[5]	30 penalty units and/or 1 year	3 months	Nil
6	Knowingly deal with proceeds of crime[6]	15 years	4 years	6 months
Related Summary Offences
6	Possess cartridge ammunition whilst not the holder of a licence[7]	40 penalty units	Fined $1,000.00	Nil
9	Breach condition of parole without reasonable excuse[8]	30 penalty units and/or 3 months	2 months	Nil
Total Effective Sentence:		8 years 6 months
Non-Parole Period:		5 years
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		1 day
Section 6AAA Statement:		Total Effective Sentence 12 years Non Parole-Period 9 years 6 months
Other Relevant Orders: Applicant sentenced as a serious drug offender pursuant to s 89DI of the Sentencing Act 1991.[9]

[1]Contrary to s 112P of the Firearms Act 1996.

[2]Contrary to s 71AA(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.

[3]Contrary to s 71AA(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.

[4]Contrary to s 71AC(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.

[5]Contrary to s 73(1) of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981.

[6]Contrary to s 194(2) of the Crimes Act 1958.

[7]Contrary to s 124 of the Firearms Act 1996.

[8]Contrary to s 78A(1) Corrections Act 1986.

[9](‘Sentencing Act’).

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence on the single ground that the sentences imposed on charges 2 and 3,…

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 Parks v The King

Details

AGLC: Parks v The King [2025] VSCA 84
Case: [2025] VSCA 84
Decision Date: 28 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Parks v The King, the appellant, Parks, sought to appeal against his sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant was found guilty of multiple offences, including dealing in firearms, trafficking in drugs, and possession of the proceeds of crime. These offences were committed while the appellant was on parole for similar past convictions. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court was manifestly excessive and whether it took into account all relevant factors, including the statutory presumptions of cumulation and order of sentence, as well as the principle of totality. Additionally, the Court needed to assess whether the sentence was within the appropriate range for the offences committed.

The Court of Appeal found that the Supreme Court had properly considered the statutory presumptions and the appellant's significant criminal history. The Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of penalties typically imposed for such offences. The Court emphasised that the totality principle was also appropriately applied, ensuring that the sentence reflected the cumulative impact of the appellant's criminal activities. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal, affirming the original sentence imposed by the Supreme Court.

Orders