R v Gillick - [2001] VSCA 201

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 11 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
ROBERT ANTHONY GILLICK

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES, BUCHANAN and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	1 November 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 November 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 201	(1st Revision – 21 November 2001)

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence - Parity - No sufficient difference in culpability of co-offenders - Plea of guilty - Desirability of sentencing judge stating plea of guilty has been taken into account.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S. Pullen	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr P.F. Tehan Q.C.	Patrick W. Dwyer

CHARLES, J.A.:

I will ask Buchanan, J.A. to give the first judgment.

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

On 23 October 2000 the appellant was arraigned in the County Court and pleaded guilty to a presentment containing five counts, a count alleging that he cultivated not less than a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant being cannabis L, a count alleging that he stole a quantity of electricity, two counts of bribery of a member of the police force and a count of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The maximum sentence for cultivation of a commercial quantity of a narcotic plant is 25 years' imprisonment, the maximum penalty for bribery and theft is ten years' imprisonment and the maximum sentence for possession of a firearm is seven years' imprisonment.

A plea was made on behalf of the appellant and on 17 January 2001 he was sentenced to a term of five years' imprisonment on the count of cultivation of a narcotic plant, to a term of two years' imprisonment on the count of theft, to a term of three years' imprisonment on each of the counts of bribery and to a term of three months' imprisonment on the count of possession of a firearm. The sentencing judge directed that 18 months of the sentence imposed in respect of one of the counts of bribery was to be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed in respect of the offence of cultivation of a narcotic plant, producing an effective total term of six years and six months' imprisonment. His Honour fixed a minimum term of four years' imprisonment before the appellant was to be eligible for parole.

On 10 May 1999 the appellant was arrested leaving a dwelling house at 505 Nicholson Street, Carlton. The house was devoted to the cultivation of cannabis by a sophisticated hydroponic operation, utilizing plant fertilizer, wading pools and exhaust systems. The rooms of the dwelling house were used for different aspects of the production of the crop. The electricity required to conduct the hydroponic

operation was obtained by by-passing the electricity meter, which accounted for the charge of theft. The sentencing judge heard evidence as to the value of the crop from both the Crown and the appellant and concluded that the retail value of the crop to be produced by the plants was in excess…

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 Gillick

Details

AGLC: R v Gillick [2001] VSCA 201
Case: [2001] VSCA 201
Decision Date: 1 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gillick involved the defendant, Gillick, and the Crown. Gillick had pleaded guilty to a charge of being an accessory after the fact to a crime, and the Crown sought an appropriate sentence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The central dispute was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate given Gillick's plea of guilty and the need to ensure parity in sentencing between co-offenders.

The court had to determine if the sentence imposed by the trial judge adequately reflected the principle of parity between co-offenders and if the judge had properly considered the defendant's guilty plea. It was also necessary to examine whether the sentencing judge sufficiently addressed the need to state how the plea of guilty had been taken into account in the sentence imposed.

In delivering its judgment, the court held that while the trial judge had considered the principles of parity, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that the sentencing was adequately aligned with the culpability of the co-offenders. The court emphasised that when a defendant pleads guilty, the sentencing judge should clearly articulate how this plea has influenced the sentence. The court found that the trial judge had not sufficiently addressed this aspect, leading to a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the court ordered a resentencing hearing to ensure that all relevant factors, including the plea of guilty, were appropriately considered.

The court further directed that the resentencing judge should ensure that the sentence imposed reflects the principle of parity and explicitly state how the plea of guilty has been factored into the sentence. This approach aims to uphold the integrity of the sentencing process and provide clarity to the parties involved.

Orders