R v Crossley - [2008] VSCA 134

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 25 of 2007

THE QUEEN
	v
ROWENA ALISON CROSSLEY

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN, NETTLE and ASHLEY JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 July 2008
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 July 2008
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSCA 134

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Armed robbery – Attempted armed robbery – Multiple offences – Total effective sentence of 6 years and 3 months imprisonment with non-parole period of 4 years – Whether total effective sentence manifestly excessive – Particular characteristics of offending – Matters in mitigation – Informer’s discount – Appeal allowed – Appellant re-sentenced to total effective sentence of 5 years imprisonment with non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the Crown

Mr D A Trapnell

Mr S Ward, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

For the Appellant

Mr P Tehan QC

with Ms A Fox

Slades & Parsons

BUCHANAN JA:

I agree with Ashley JA.

NETTLE JA:

I also agree.

ASHLEY JA:

On 14 December 2006 Rowena Crossley pleaded guilty before a judge in the Trial Division to eight counts of armed robbery,[1] six counts of attempted armed robbery,[2] one count of obtaining property by deception,[3] and one count of attempting to obtain property by deception.[4] On 13 February 2007 the learned judge imposed sentences which yielded a total effective sentence of six years and three months’ imprisonment.[5] He fixed a non-parole period of four years, and made a

declaration in respect of pre-sentence detention.

[1]Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 9, 11 and 14. Offence contrary to Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 75A. Maximum penalty 25 years’ imprisonment.

[2]Counts 5, 8, 10, 13, 15 and 16. Offence contrary to Crimes Act, s321M. Maximum penalty, Crimes Act, s 321P, 20 years’ imprisonment.

[3]Count 7, offence contrary to Crimes Act, s 81. Maximum penalty 10 years’ imprisonment.

[4]Count 12. Offence contrary to Crimes Act, s321M. Maximum penalty, Crimes Act, s 321P, five years’ imprisonment.

[5]The individual sentence, and orders for cumulation, were as follows:

Count 1	Armed robbery	15 months’ imprisonment
Count 2	Armed robbery	15 months’ imprisonment	Cumulate 6 months
Count 3	Armed robbery	15 months’ imprisonment	Cumulate 6 months
Count 4	Armed robbery	15 months’ imprisonment	Cumulate 6 months
Count 5	Attempted armed robbery	8 months’ imprisonment	Cumulate 3 months
Count 6	Armed robbery	15 months’ imprisonment	Cumulate 6 months
Count 7	Obtaining property by deception	1 month’s imprisonment
Count 8	Attempted armed robbery	8 months’ imprisonment	Cumulate 3 months
Count 9	Armed robbery	15 months’ imprisonment	Cumulate 6 months
Count 10	Attempted robbery	8 months’ imprisonment	Cumulate 3 months
Count 11	Armed robbery	15 months’ imprisonment	Cumulate 6 months
Count 12	Attempt to obtain property by deception	14 days’ imprisonment
Count 13	Attempted armed robbery	8 months’ imprisonment	Cumulate 3 months
Count 14	Armed robbery	10 months’ imprisonment	Cumulate 6 months
Count 15	Attempted armed robbery	8 months’ imprisonment	Cumulate 3 months
Count 16	Attempted armed robbery	8…

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 Crossley

Details

AGLC: R v Crossley [2008] VSCA 134
Case: [2008] VSCA 134
Decision Date: 31 July 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Crossley, appealed against his sentence for armed robbery and related offences, arguing that the total effective sentence of 6 years and 3 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years was manifestly excessive. The case was heard in the court of appeal. The appellant had pleaded guilty to armed robbery, attempted armed robbery, aggravated robbery, and possessing a firearm. The primary legal issues were whether the total effective sentence was manifestly excessive considering the particular characteristics of the offending and matters in mitigation, and whether the discount for acting as an informer was properly considered.

The court of appeal considered the total effective sentence, the characteristics of the offending, and matters in mitigation. The appellant had acted as an informer and received a discount for that, but the court noted that the discount was only partially reflected in the sentence. The court found that the total effective sentence was manifestly excessive, taking into account the appellant's cooperation as an informer and other mitigating factors. The court re-sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was re-sentenced. The court considered the appellant's cooperation as an informer and other mitigating factors, which led to a reduced sentence. The court also emphasised the importance of reflecting the informer's discount more accurately in the sentencing process. The final orders were that the appellant's sentence was to be reduced to a total effective sentence of 5 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months.

Orders