R v Chaffey - [1999] VSCA 12

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 201 of 1998

THE QUEEN

MARTIN JOHN CHAFFEY

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J., CHARLES and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 February 1999
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 February 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1999] VSCA 12

---

Criminal law - Sentencing - Armed robbery - Youthful offender - Prospects of rehabilitation - Sentence not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mrs. C.M. Quin	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. D.J. Gurvich	Pro Bono

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

I shall ask my brother Charles to give the first judgment in this matter.

CHARLES, J.A.:

The applicant, who was born on 19 April 1977, pleaded guilty on 10 August 1998 in the County Court at Melbourne to one offence of armed robbery committed on 8 February 1998. Presented with the applicant were two co-accused, Sophie Elizabeth Hughes and Nathan Francis Butler, who pleaded guilty to the same offence. Hughes and Butler also pleaded guilty to a second offence of attempted armed robbery (count 2 on the presentment) committed two days later on Tuesday 10 February 1998. The maximum penalty for armed robbery was 25 years' imprisonment. During the plea, the applicant admitted seven prior convictions from three court appearances between 27 May 1992 and 6 June 1997, including causing serious injury intentionally and two offences of causing wilful damage.

On 18 August the learned judge sentenced the applicant to be imprisoned for 18 months, nine months of which was suspended for a period of 24 months. Hughes was sentenced on the count of armed robbery to be detained in a youth training centre for 18 months, and on count 2 to be detained for a further period of six months, making a total effective sentence of two years' detention. Butler was sentenced on the count of armed robbery to be imprisoned for 18 months and on count 2 for six months which was to be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed on count 1. Butler's total effective sentence was two years' imprisonment and a non-parole period of 12 months was fixed.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence on the grounds that

(1)the sentence is manifestly excessive;
(2)the learned judge failed to give appropriate weight to his prospects of rehabilitation;
(3)the learned judge failed to give appropriate weight to the youthfulness of the applicant.

The circumstances giving rise to the offence were as follows. On Sunday 8 February, shortly after 6 p.m., the applicant, Hughes and Butler went by car to a milk bar at 24 Milford Street, Kilsyth. Hughes entered the milk bar, leaving Butler outside as a lookout. She approached the counter of the shop and asked the milk bar owner, Julie Doidge, for some change for a telephone call. Doidge handed Hughes 50 cents in five and ten cent pieces. While the cash register was open, Hughes reached across and grabbed Doidge, at the time holding a knife in her…

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 Chaffey

Details

AGLC: R v Chaffey [1999] VSCA 12
Case: [1999] VSCA 12
Decision Date: 5 February 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Chaffey involved the defendant, Chaffey, who was convicted of armed robbery. Chaffey, a young offender, faced sentencing before the relevant court, which had to determine an appropriate punishment considering his age and potential for rehabilitation. The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the court had adequately considered Chaffey's youth and prospects of rehabilitation in its sentencing decision.

The court considered the severity of the offence, which involved the use of a weapon, alongside the defendant's background and potential for future reform. The court examined whether the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crime, taking into account mitigating factors such as Chaffey's age and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court also assessed whether the sentencing judge had appropriately balanced the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentencing judge had considered the defendant's youth and prospects of rehabilitation, along with the seriousness of the offence, in arriving at the sentence. The court was satisfied that the sentence reflected a fair balance between punishment and the potential for rehabilitation. Consequently, the court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, confirming that it was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

The final orders of the court affirmed the sentence imposed on the defendant, Chaffey, for his conviction of armed robbery. The court's decision underscored the importance of considering individual circumstances, including age and rehabilitation potential, in the sentencing process.

Orders