Legal Research
Cases
R v Gillick

R v Gillick

Case [2000] VSCA 127 13 June 2000

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 124 of 1999

THE QUEEN

ROBERT ANTHONY GILLICK

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J., CALLAWAY and CHERNOV, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 June 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 June 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 127

---

CRIMINAL LAW: Appeal against sentence – Allegations of a manifestly excessive sentence – Insufficient weight being given to the applicant’s plea of guilty – Siganto v The Queen (1998) 194 C.L.R.656 – R v Shannon (1979) 21 S.A.S.A.442 and 5.5(2) of the Sentencing Act cited – Application dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C.	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr C.B. Boyce	Patrick W. Dwyer

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

The applicant, who is aged 29, was arraigned in the County Court at Melbourne on 24 February 1998 upon a presentment which charged three counts. Count 1 alleged that he trafficked in cannabis L between 30 December 1996 and 14 March 1997, count 2 alleged cultivation of the same drug between the same dates, and count 3 alleged possession of the same drug on 14 March 1997. These alleged offences carry maximum penalties of 15 years and a fine of $100,000 (counts 1 and 2) and five years and a fine of $40,000 (count 3).

After a hand-up brief committal at which witnesses for the prosecution were not cross-examined, the applicant pleaded not guilty to count 1 on the day of his arraignment and indicated a plea of not guilty to the other counts. But subsequently, on 17 May 1999, he pleaded guilty to count 1. No pleas were taken on the other counts, which appear to have been treated as alternatives.

The applicant admitted seven prior convictions from two court appearances in November 1991 and January 1996. They included convictions for cultivation of a narcotic plant and possession of a drug of dependence, for which he had received, among other offences, suspended sentences of imprisonment. The suspension period was two years from 24 January 1996 and consequently the instant offence was committed during the currency of that suspended sentence.

After a plea for leniency in which the learned judge received a report of a forensic psychologist, Mr Joblin, and viva voce evidence from the applicant's mother and sister, his Honour sentenced the applicant to be imprisoned for three-and-a-half years. A non-parole period of two-and-a-half years was fixed and a declaration made as to pre-sentence detention.

On 4 June 1999 the applicant lodged notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence, pleading: "The learned sentencing judge imposed a sentence which is manifestly excessive, taking into account all of the circumstances." After subsequent proceedings in this Court the applicant has elected to have his application for leave to appeal determined by three judges assembled.

There were alleged co-offenders, both called Robinson. They have now been committed for trial but still await that event. A directions hearing is to occur next August.

It is now necessary…

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 [2000] VSCA 127
Case: [2000] VSCA 127
Decision Date: 13 June 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Gillick, the appellant, Gillick, sought to appeal against the sentence imposed by the lower court. The nature of the dispute revolved around the alleged excessiveness of the sentence handed down, particularly in relation to the consideration of the appellant's plea of guilty. The appeal was heard in the relevant appellate court, which was tasked with determining whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether sufficient weight was given to the plea of guilty.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, taking into account the relevant sentencing principles and the weight to be given to the appellant's plea of guilty. The court considered the relevant case law, including Siganto v The Queen and R v Shannon, as well as the provisions of the Sentencing Act, in determining the appropriate weight to be given to a plea of guilty in sentencing. The court was required to weigh these factors against the overall sentence imposed to determine if it was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive, and that sufficient weight had been given to the appellant's plea of guilty. The court emphasised the importance of considering all relevant factors, including the plea of guilty, in determining an appropriate sentence. The court also noted that the sentence imposed was within the range of penalties that could be imposed for the offence, and that the lower court had appropriately considered the relevant sentencing principles. The appeal was subsequently dismissed.

No specific final orders were made in the text provided. However, it can be inferred that the dismissal of the appeal would mean that the original sentence imposed by the lower court remains in place.

Orders