SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
No. 317 of 2001
| THE QUEEN |
| v. |
| JOHN EDWARD BARNES |
---
JUDGES: | CALLAWAY, BUCHANAN and EAMES, JJ.A. | |
WHERE HELD: | MELBOURNE | |
DATE OF HEARING: | 2 September 2003 | |
DATE OF JUDGMENT: | 2 October 2003 | |
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: | [2003] VSCA 156 | |
---
Criminal Law – Indecent act with child under 16 and other offences – Application for leave to appeal against conviction following plea of guilty – R. v. Coffey [2003] VSCA 155 applied – Leave to appeal against conviction refused – Serious sexual offender – Whether disproportionate sentence should be imposed – Non-parole period where protection of community is principal purpose for which sentence is imposed – Crimes Act 1958, s.19 – Sentencing Act 1991, ss.5(2AA)(a), 6D, 6E, 16(3B), 18B.
---
| APPEARANCES: | Counsel | Solicitors |
| For the Crown | Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C., D.P.P. and Ms K. Judd | K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions |
| For the Applicant/Appellant | Mr M.J. Croucher and Ms M.S.K. Ingleton | Leanne Warren & Assoc. |
CALLAWAY, J.A.:
John Edward Barnes, who is now aged almost 71, comes before the Court as an appellant against sentence, leave to appeal having been granted by a single judge on 10th May 2002, and as an applicant for leave to appeal against conviction. For convenience I shall call him "the appellant".
He pleaded guilty in the County Court to five counts of committing an indecent act with a child under 16 (counts 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6), one count of possession of methylamphetamine (count 5), one count of administering a substance, specified as amphetamines, capable of interfering substantially with bodily functions (count 7) and one count of obtaining a financial advantage by deception (count 8). He admitted 128 previous convictions from 58 court appearances between December 1958 and December 1994. On the last occasion he had been convicted on one count of attempted rape, three counts of taking part in an act of sexual penetration with a child aged between 10 and 16, two counts of attempting to take part in such an act, three counts of committing an indecent act with a child under 16, two counts of indecent assault, one count of administering a drug for the purpose of sexual penetration, one count of possession of amphetamines and one count of possession of cannabis. He was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years, a sentence later affirmed by the Court of Criminal Appeal.[1] The present offences were committed while the appellant was released on parole pursuant to the eligibility granted in 1994.[2]
[1]Phillips, C.J., Crockett and Hampel, JJ., unreported, 20th March 1995.
[2]Parole was originally granted on 2nd June 1999 but it was cancelled when the appellant failed to comply with one of the conditions. Parole was again granted on 7th October 2000 and would have expired on 12th May 2001. The offences were committed on 20th and 21st December 2000.
After hearing a plea for leniency on his behalf and considering a…
Continue reading R v Barnes
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- R v Barnes [2003] VSCA 156
- Case
- [2003] VSCA 156
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the principles outlined in R. v. Coffey [2003] VSCA 155, which established that leave to appeal against conviction should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. The defendant argued that his case warranted such an appeal, but the court found that the criteria were not met. The court also examined the sentencing principles under the Crimes Act 1958 and the Sentencing Act 1991, focusing on the appropriateness of the sentence and the non-parole period imposed, where the protection of the community was the primary purpose for the sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate and did not warrant an appeal.
The Victorian Court of Appeal found that the defendant's application for leave to appeal against his conviction should be dismissed, as the criteria for such an appeal were not satisfied. The court further held that the sentence imposed was appropriate and did not warrant any adjustment. As a result, the defendant's conviction and sentence were upheld.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.