R v Crozier - [2005] VSCA 188

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 307 of 2004

THE QUEEN
	v.
RICHARD IVAN CROZIER

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES, VINCENT and ASHLEY, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	21 July 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 July 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 188

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Indecent act with a child under 16 years – Incest – Sexual penetration of a child under 16 years – Manifest excess – Nothing in sentencing judge’s remarks or other circumstances to explain unusually high non-parole period – R v. V.Z. (1998) 7 V.R. 693 – Sentencing discretion re-opened – Appeal allowed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, Q.C.	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr M.J. Croucher	Victoria Legal Aid

CHARLES, J.A.:

I will call on Vincent, J.A. to give the first judgment.

VINCENT, J.A.:

The appellant, Richard Ivan Crozier, pleaded guilty in the County Court, at Melbourne, to four counts of the commission of an indecent act with a child under the age of 16 years (counts 1, 2, 7 and 8), two counts of incest (counts 3 and 4), seven counts of the sexual penetration of a child under the age of 16 years (counts 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13), two counts of being a non-prohibited person in possession of an unregistered firearm (counts 14 and 15) and two summary charges, namely, the possession of a firearm (Charge 20) and the possession of ammunition (Charge 21).

After hearing a plea in mitigation of penalty, the learned sentencing judge, on 4 November 2004, imposed the following sentences of imprisonment for these offences:
Count 1         -          6 months;
Count 2         -          9 months;
Count 3         -          4 years;
Count 4         -          5 years;
Count 5         -          3 years and 6 months;
Count 6         -          3 years;
Count 7         -          2 years;
Count 8         -          3 months;
Count 9         -          3 years;
Count 10       -          3 years and 6 months;
Count 11       -          4 years and 6 months;
Count 12       -          6 years;
Count 13       -          5 years;
Count 14       -          6 months;
Count 15       -          6 months; and
Charge 20     -          2 months.
Her Honour directed that one year of the sentence imposed on count 4 and 6 months of the sentence imposed on each of counts 5, 10, 11 and 13 be served cumulatively upon each other and upon the sentence imposed on count 12. This created a total effective sentence of 9 years' imprisonment, in respect of which she fixed a non-parole period of 7 years and 6 months. On the remaining summary charge (Charge 21) her Honour imposed a fine of $150. She directed that it be noted in the records of the court that the offences encompassed by counts 1, 2, 7 and 8 were Class 2 registrable offences under the Sexual Offenders Registration Act and that the offences encompassed by counts 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13…

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 Crozier

Details

AGLC: R v Crozier [2005] VSCA 188
Case: [2005] VSCA 188
Decision Date: 21 July 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Crozier involved the appellant, who was convicted of multiple charges, including indecent acts with a child under the age of 16 and sexual penetration of a child under 16. The Crown Court of Victoria was tasked with assessing the sentence handed down by the trial judge. The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the trial judge's discretion in sentencing could be re-opened. The court needed to determine if there were any factors, either in the sentencing remarks or the circumstances of the case, that could justify the unusually high non-parole period imposed.

The court considered the principle established in R v. V.Z., which provided that if the sentence is so high that it cannot be understood, the appellate court should re-open the sentencing discretion. The court found that the sentencing judge's remarks did not provide a clear rationale for the unusually high non-parole period, and there were no other circumstances to explain it. The severity of the crimes was undeniable, but the court was required to ensure that the sentence was proportionate and justifiable. Given the lack of explanation from the sentencing judge and the absence of any other factors that might have justified the high non-parole period, the court concluded that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Consequently, the court re-opened the sentencing discretion and allowed the appeal. The appellate court recognised that the crimes were serious and warranted a significant sentence, but it needed to be one that was both proportionate and justifiable. The high non-parole period could not be understood or explained by the trial judge's remarks or any other circumstances, leading to the conclusion that it was manifestly excessive. The appeal was allowed, and the sentencing discretion was re-opened to ensure a more appropriate and justifiable sentence.

The final orders of the court were to allow the appeal and re-open the sentencing discretion. The court did not impose a new sentence but instead directed that the sentencing judge should re-consider the appropriate term of imprisonment, ensuring it was both proportionate to the gravity of the offences and justifiable under the law. This decision underscored the importance of transparency and proportionality in sentencing, particularly in cases involving serious sexual offences against children.

Orders