R v Colic - [2001] VSCA 172

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 94 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
MAJA COLIC

---

JUDGES:	ORMISTON, CALLAWAY and VINCENT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 September 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 October 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 172

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Armed Robbery – Intentionally causing serious injury – Youthful offender – Degree of participation with co-accused who used iron bar – Extent of remorse – Whether 18 month Y.T.C. excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr T. Hoare	Lewenberg and Lewenberg

ORMISTON, J.A.:

In this appeal I have had the benefit of reading the statement of facts set out in the judgment of Vincent, J.A. Having carefully read and considered his Honour’s reasons, to which I would naturally attach a great deal of weight, I have, with considerable misgivings and regret, reached a different conclusion as to the proper outcome. In my opinion the appeal should be dismissed.

Three of the four offences which the appellant admitted by her plea of guilt were serious offences and, notwithstanding her comparative youth and lack of prior convictions, were such as to justify what I would consider modest terms of incarceration in a youth training centre, which in fact, with full concurrency, amounted in all to only 18 months. The two counts of armed robbery were vicious examples of that too prevalent offence committed on persons in a residential building, in which not merely was there a threat to use a nasty and dangerous weapon in the form of an iron bar but in addition that threat was carried into effect in relation to both of the victims. Not only that but the robbery in the case of one victim was accompanied by a degrading and humiliating request from one of the co-accused, acceded to under the same threat of force, to remove his trousers and underpants ostensibly for the purpose of searching for drugs.

As I have said, each of the threats to use force was carried out, in one case leading to the count of intentionally causing serious injury and the other to intentionally causing only injury, but in each the iron bar was in fact used and applied to the body of each victim. Not only that but in one case there was a vicious blow to the face which resulted apparently in two broken teeth. Although in terms of serious injury the injuries inflicted on that victim might be seen to come towards the lower end of the scale, the participants’ intentions were clear enough and, in any event, the two armed robberies were the most serious of the offences which the appellant admitted.

Nor do I think the appellant’s participation in these offences took the case into a category where the learned judge’s sentence should be seen to have been erroneous or excessive. By her plea she admitted that she participated in the…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Colic and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2001] VSCA 172
Decision Date: 5 October 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth versus Colic, the defendant stood accused of armed robbery, during which he and his co-accused caused serious injury to the victim. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of the state. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentencing for Colic, with the Crown arguing for a harsher penalty due to the severity of the crime and the defendant's partial involvement in the assault. Colic's legal representation, on the other hand, advocated for a more lenient sentence, emphasising his lesser role in the crime, his young age at the time of the offence, and his expressions of remorse.

The central legal issue before the court was the appropriate degree of punishment for Colic, considering his level of participation in the crime and the mitigating factors presented by his defence. The court had to weigh the gravity of the armed robbery and the harm inflicted against Colic's age, the extent of his involvement, and the demonstration of remorse. This balancing act was crucial in determining whether the proposed sentence of 18 months in a Youth Training Centre was commensurate with the crime committed and the principles of sentencing.

The court carefully considered the arguments from both sides, ultimately concluding that the proposed 18-month sentence was appropriate. It found that while the crime was serious, Colic's degree of participation was less than that of his co-accused, and his youth and remorse were significant mitigating factors. The court deemed the sentence to be just and proportionate, reflecting both the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation. This decision underscored the importance of individualised sentencing in criminal cases, taking into account the unique circumstances of each offender.

The final orders of the court upheld the proposed 18-month sentence for Colic, reflecting the court's determination that this was a just and appropriate punishment for his role in the armed robbery, balanced with his age and expressions of remorse. The court's decision highlighted the importance of considering a range of factors in sentencing, ensuring that the punishment fits the crime while also considering the offender's potential for rehabilitation and the broader principles of justice.

Orders