R v Casley - [2023] VSC 678

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0127

THE KING	Prosecution
v
LIAM CASLEY	Accused

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 July 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 August 2023
DATE OF REASONS:	30 November 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Casley
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 678

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Breach of Community Corrections Order — Non‑compliance and further offending — Index offence of affray — Youth — Plea of guilty to original offence and affray — Disadvantaged upbringing and mental health issues — Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) — Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	J O’Halloran	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	J Barrera	Stary Norton Halphen

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Liam Casley, on 17 August 2021, Justice Croucher sentenced you to eight months’ imprisonment, to be followed by an eight month Community Corrections Order [‘CCO’]. The sentence was in relation to a charge of affray, which you pleaded guilty to on 23 June 2021. A chronology of relevant events is attached to these reasons at Schedule 1, given that you have appeared before this court a number of times since the original orders were made in this matter.

The reasons delivered this day by the court should be read in conjunction with the reasons expressed by Justice Croucher in R v Casley [2021] VSC 503, and myself in DPP v Casley [2022] VSC 718. I do not propose to repeat unnecessary matters that have been discussed in the above proceedings.

Background
The index offence

For present purposes, it is not necessary to repeat in detail the circumstances of the index offending, beyond saying that it involved an attack on Cameron Smith by a group of people in Station Street, Seaford. Mr Smith received a fatal stab wound inflicted by one of your group. Whilst you were not responsible for the fatal wound inflicted on Mr Smith, you were part of the group that had attacked him and you yourself inflicted kicks on Mr Smith after he had been stabbed.

A detailed description of these events appears in the sentencing reasons in DPP v Ledlin [2022] VSC 826, which followed a contested trial in which the primary offender was found guilty of murder by a jury.

Previous contravention proceeding

Following the sentence passed on you by Justice Croucher, you came before me on 8 August and 24 October 2022 in relation to contraventions of the CCO imposed by his Honour. The alleged contraventions involved failing, without reasonable excuse, to undergo treatment and rehabilitation on two occasions, failing to be supervised and monitored on three occasions, and being convicted of further offences during the operational period of the order. I note that these matters were meant to be heard in May 2022, but you failed to appear before me in court on that date.

The further offending noted above related to your conviction on…

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 Casley

Details

AGLC: R v Casley [2023] VSC 678
Case: [2023] VSC 678
Decision Date: 29 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Casley involved the respondent, a youth with a disadvantaged upbringing and mental health issues, who was before the Victorian County Court on a charge of breaching a community corrections order. The respondent had previously pleaded guilty to an index offence of affray and a subsequent offence of non-compliance with a community corrections order. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the respondent's personal circumstances.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's disadvantaged background and mental health issues warranted a reduced sentence and how to balance these mitigating factors against the seriousness of the breach and the need for general deterrence. The court considered the statutory provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) and the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), as well as relevant case law on sentencing for young offenders and breaches of community corrections orders.

The court acknowledged the respondent's disadvantaged upbringing and mental health issues as significant mitigating factors but emphasised the seriousness of the breach and the need to uphold the integrity of the community corrections order system. Ultimately, the court determined that while these factors warranted some leniency, they did not justify a minimal sentence. The court imposed a sentence that included a period of imprisonment with an emphasis on rehabilitation and support services to address the respondent's underlying issues. The court also noted the importance of general deterrence in sentencing for breaches of community corrections orders.

Orders