R v Brain - [2000] VSCA 246

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 230 of 2000

THE QUEEN

MEGAN ANNE BRAIN

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BROOKING and PHILLIPS, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 December 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 December 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 246

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Armed robbery by young drug addict – Community based order – Breach – Order cancelled and replaced by youth training centre detention – No error.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. C. J. Ryan	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr. M.G. O’Connell	Melasecca Zayler

BROOKING, J.A.:

The appellant was given leave to appeal on a s.582 application last Friday. She is now 19. On 17 and 18 July 1998, at the age of 17 and two months, she committed one armed robbery and two attempted armed robberies in company with two other young women or, in the case of one offence, one other young woman.

The second offence was committed very soon after the first. In all three offences one offender was armed with a syringe and the women demanded, and in one case obtained, money from a person using an automatic teller machine in the City on a Friday or Saturday evening.

The appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court and on 14 May 1999 the judge convicted her of the three offences and placed her on a community-based order for two years, with conditions providing for treatment for alcohol and drug addiction and testing for alcohol or drug use.

On 31 July last, the appellant was dealt with by the same judge in consequence of an admitted breach of the community-based order. His Honour cancelled it and sentenced her to twelve months' Youth Training Centre detention on the count of armed robbery and to six months' detention on each of the counts of attempted armed robbery, and made a cumulation order resulting in a total effective sentence of 15 months' detention.

There are four grounds of appeal, it being said that the sentence was manifestly excessive, that the judge failed to take into account the appellant's rehabilitation, that he failed to take into account her compliance with the community-based order and that he failed to take into account the effluxion of time between the offence and the commencement of the sentence.

The breaches alleged were failures to attend for supervision as directed on six occasions between June 1999 and March 2000, failure to attend for treatment as directed in January 2000, and failure to attend for drug testing as directed in June 1999.

Her counsel told the judge that she had, in addition, breached the order by committing a shoplifting offence in about June 1999, and so only about a month after she was placed on the order, that she had not yet been dealt with for that offence, but that she would be pleading guilty in due course. His Honour observed that the admitted commission of this…

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 Brain

Details

AGLC: R v Brain [2000] VSCA 246
Case: [2000] VSCA 246
Decision Date: 12 December 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, who were young individuals, were convicted of armed robbery and subsequently sentenced to community-based orders. The orders were intended to address their offending behaviour, given their age and circumstances. The sentences were challenged on appeal, which was subsequently dismissed. The respondents then applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court, which was granted. The central issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in imposing community-based orders instead of custodial sentences, particularly considering the severity of the offence and the respondents' criminal history.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for young offenders, particularly those who are drug addicts, and whether the trial judge properly exercised his discretion. The court examined the objectives of sentencing under the relevant legislation, including punishment, deterrence, rehabilitation, and community protection. It was emphasised that the trial judge had a broad discretion to choose an appropriate sentence, which could include non-custodial options if they were suitable for the particular offender and circumstances. The court held that the trial judge had not erred in opting for community-based orders, as they were deemed appropriate given the respondents' age, background, and the potential for rehabilitation.

In reaching its decision, the court underscored the importance of tailoring sentences to the individual offender, taking into account factors such as age, criminal history, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential benefits of rehabilitation. The court also noted that the respondents had breached their community-based orders, leading to their detention in a youth training centre. This outcome reinforced the appropriateness of the original sentencing decision, as it demonstrated that the non-custodial orders had ultimately failed. The High Court concluded that there was no error in the trial judge's sentencing decision and dismissed the appeal.

Orders