R v Binse - [2014] VSC 253

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2013 0037
S CR 2014 0025

THE QUEEN
v
CHRISTOPHER BINSE	Accused

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	28, 29 and 30 April 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 May 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Binse
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 253

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Prohibited person possess firearm – Theft – Armed Robbery – Prohibited person use a firearm – Reckless conduct endangering serious injury – Long history of substantially similar criminal offending – Discount for onerous conditions of incarceration – No rule of law whereby offender who is responsible for the onerousness of the conditions is not entitled to sentencing discount – Pleas of guilty – Evidence of some remorse – Specific deterrence of significant weight – Highly desirable that prior to release the offender be subject to the support and strict supervision of the parole board for a considerable period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Chadwick QC with Ms J. Warren	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S. Holt SC	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Binse, you have pleaded guilty to the following offences:

INDICTMENT NO 1 (C11434997.3)MAXIMUM

Charge No

7 Prohibited person possess firearm 10 yrs

8 Theft 10 yrs

INDICTMENT NO 2 (C1143997.4)MAXIMUM

Charge No

1 Armed Robbery 25 yrs

2 Prohibited person use a firearm (rolled up count) 10 yrs

3 Reckless conduct that may place another person in danger of serious injury 5 yrs

4 Prohibited person possessing a firearm (rolled up count) 10 yrs

You were acquitted after a trial of the first six charges on Indictment 1.

It is necessary to say something of your background so that the context of your offending may be properly understood. You have spent 28 of the last 32 years in some form of custody. Your father taught you to steal. You were a ward of the state at 13, accommodated at Baltara Boys Home. By 14, you were detained at Turana Youth Training Centre and by 17 you were transferred to Pentridge while undergoing a Children’s Court sentence. By 18, you had been classified as a management unit prisoner and were imprisoned in the notorious H Division of that prison. You were transferred out to Beechworth after the suicide of another young prisoner held in that Division.

Since that time you have spent comparatively little time in the community. In the 1980s, once you were eligible for adult court, you committed essentially street offences that escalated in seriousness. In 1993, you were convicted of four counts of armed robbery, receiving in total an aggregate sentence of seven years six months with a minimum of five years. These armed robberies were committed on banks and, with one exception, during trading hours. The learned sentencing judge noted that by then you had accumulated 96 previous convictions over 27 court appearances. You were then just 24…

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 R v Binse

Details

AGLC: R v Binse [2014] VSC 253
Case: [2014] VSC 253
Decision Date: 23 May 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Binse, faced criminal charges in the Supreme Court of Queensland, encompassing possession of a firearm by a prohibited person, theft, armed robbery, and the use of a firearm. The case also involved reckless conduct that endangered serious injury. The defendant had a significant history of similar criminal activities. The court needed to decide the appropriate sentence, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, the defendant's criminal history, and the discount for the onerous conditions of incarceration. The court also had to consider the defendant's pleas of guilty, the evidence of some remorse, and the weight of specific deterrence.

The court acknowledged that there is no established rule of law that prevents an offender from receiving a sentencing discount for the onerous conditions of incarceration when they are responsible for those conditions. The court recognised the importance of specific deterrence and the highly desirable nature of subjecting the offender to the support and strict supervision of the parole board for a considerable period before their release. The court considered the discount for the onerous conditions of incarceration, the pleas of guilty, and the evidence of some remorse. The court found that specific deterrence was of significant weight in this case, and it was highly desirable that the offender be subject to the support and strict supervision of the parole board for a considerable period before their release.

The Supreme Court of Queensland sentenced Binse to a total of 12 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 7 years. The court acknowledged the defendant's pleas of guilty and evidence of some remorse, but emphasised the importance of specific deterrence in this case. The court considered the discount for the onerous conditions of incarceration, and the highly desirable nature of subjecting the offender to the support and strict supervision of the parole board for a considerable period before their release. The final orders of the court were that Binse be imprisoned for a total of 12 years, with a non-parole period of 7 years. The court emphasised the importance of specific deterrence and the need for strict supervision of the offender before their release.

Orders