R v Cooper - [1998] VSCA 39

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 282 of 1997

THE QUEEN

ALICIA CECILIA COOPER

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., TADGELL and CALLAWAY, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 August 1998
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 September 1998
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION:	[1998] VSCA 39

---

Criminal law - Sentence - Burglary and armed robbery - Young offender with significant criminal history - Offences committed whilst applicant on probation - Applicant sentenced to three years’ detention in youth training centre and co- offender to three years’ imprisonment - Sentence not manifestly excessive nor manifestly disparate.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. J. D. McArdle	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. R. Bourke

WINNEKE, P.:

On 8 December 1997 the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to a presentment alleging offences of burglary and armed robbery. The victim of the offences was a middle aged woman who was terrorised in the privacy of her niece’s flat in Fitzroy.
The offences were committed in January 1997 when the applicant was 17 years of age. Despite her youth, she had established a significant criminal history, including a number of convictions for theft and assault. The prior convictions had been recorded in the Children’s Court and would appear, from the material before this Court, to have been substantially influenced by drug addiction and poor quality companions. Until she pleaded guilty to these offences, she had been treated leniently by the courts and had not been previously confined in detention centres. It was pertinent that these offences were committed whilst she was on probation. The circumstances in which they were committed reflect no credit upon her, not least because they were committed in company with a violent young man called Lawrence Lovett who had an appalling criminal record. The circumstances were adequately and accurately described by the sentencing judge in the following manner:
“You both followed the victim into her niece’s flat where she was staying, in a block of flats in Fitzroy. You saw her outside and followed her into a lift and pestered her for cigarettes. As she got out of the lift and got into her flat and locked the door, you screamed at her and you, Mr. Lovett, or perhaps both of you, it does not matter in the circumstances, kicked the door apart and forced entry. You both then terrorised her, making loud demands for cigarettes and threatening death if she did not comply. You, Mr. Lovett, obtained a steak knife and you, Miss Cooper, a pot with which you threatened her.
At Miss Cooper’s suggestion, you, Mr. Lovett, searched her bodily and you both searched her clothing. You, Miss Cooper, took some cigarettes and Mr. Lovett then pushed Miss Cooper out the door and returned; and refused to let her in again although she was demanding re-entry. You, Mr. Lovett, grabbed the victim and dragged her into a bathroom, putting a knife to her throat and making…

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 Cooper

Details

AGLC: R v Cooper [1998] VSCA 39
Case: [1998] VSCA 39
Decision Date: 10 September 1998

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Cooper involved an appellant who had been convicted of two counts of armed robbery and one count of burglary. The appellant, who had a significant criminal history, committed the offences while on probation for a previous crime. The court sentenced the appellant to three years' detention in a youth training centre, while his co-offender received three years' imprisonment. The appellant appealed against the sentence, arguing that it was excessive and disparate when compared to his co-offender's sentence. The High Court of Australia was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive or manifestly disparate.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive or manifestly disparate when compared to the sentence imposed on his co-offender. The court was required to consider the circumstances of the case, the appellant's criminal history, and the principles of sentencing for young offenders. The court also had to assess whether the sentence was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed.

The court found that the sentence imposed on the appellant was not manifestly excessive or manifestly disparate. The court noted that the appellant had a significant criminal history and that the offences were committed while he was on probation for a previous crime. The court also considered the principles of sentencing for young offenders, which emphasised rehabilitation and deterrence. The court held that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences and took into account the appellant's age and criminal history. The court also noted that the appellant's co-offender had a different criminal history and therefore, a different sentence was appropriate.

The High Court of Australia dismissed the appellant's appeal against his sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive or manifestly disparate and was proportionate to the seriousness of the offences committed. The court emphasised the importance of considering the individual circumstances of each case when imposing a sentence and noted that the sentence imposed on the appellant was appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders