R. v. Greenslade - [2004] VSCA 213

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 364 of 2003

THE QUEEN
	v.
CRAIG DAVID GREENSLADE

---

JUDGES:	WARREN, C.J., BATT and EAMES, JJ.A
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	24 June 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	30 November 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 213

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal against sentence of a trial judge pursuant to leave under s.582 Crimes Act 1958 – Whether sentences imposed were manifestly excessive – Whether sentence amounted to an “extraordinary sentence” – Whether too much weight was attributed to appellant’s prior convictions – Whether sentences imposed were disproportionate to the gravity of the offences – Whether the judge erred in considering the period of breached parole – Sentencing Act 1991 s.16(3B) – appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R.A. Elston	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr R.J. Thyssen	Chester Metcalfe & Co.

WARREN, C.J.:

The appellant, Craig David Greenslade, appealed against sentence, leave having been granted by a single judge pursuant to s.582 of the Crimes Act 1958.

The appellant was convicted after a two day trial in the County Court at Melbourne on 13 November 2003 on two counts of theft of a motorcar (Count 1) and a motorised scooter (Count 3) and one count of burglary of the shop from which the scooter was stolen (Count 2). Both theft and burglary carry a maximum sentence of ten years[1]. The appellant admitted 85 prior convictions and 7 findings of guilt from 17 court appearances between February 1986 and February 2002, the majority of the convictions being for theft and burglary. He had been sentenced to terms of imprisonment on 13 of those appearances.
[1]Sections 74 and 76 of the Crimes Act 1958.

The circumstances of the conviction were that on 20 February 2003 the appellant and his co-offender, Kelly Denise Tiernan, entered a shop at 179 Victoria Avenue, Middle Park, known as “Albert Park Inline Skate Shop” at about 6.25 am. Witnesses observed the appellant leaving the shop at that time through the bottom half of a glass door that was broken. He was observed to be carrying a motorised fold-up scooter (the events constituting Counts 2 and 3). The appellant was then observed to run to a red Holden Commodore car parked at the front of the shop and enter the driver’s seat. The vehicle had been stolen from South Melbourne earlier (the event constituting Count 1). When the appellant entered the vehicle, a blue Holden Commodore, in which the co-offender Tiernan was seated, was parked behind the red vehicle in which the appellant was seated. The two vehicles were observed to drive off. Witnesses noted the registration numbers of the vehicles and informed the police.

Subsequently, the red Holden Commodore was set ablaze at another location. The appellant was charged with the offence of criminal damage by fire (the event constituting Count 4). He was acquitted at trial of that charge.

On the plea, the…

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. Greenslade

Details

AGLC: R. v. Greenslade [2004] VSCA 213
Case: [2004] VSCA 213
Decision Date: 30 November 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R. v. Greenslade, the respondent appealed against the sentence imposed by a trial judge, pursuant to leave under section 582 of the Crimes Act 1958. The case centred on whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were manifestly excessive, amounted to an “extraordinary sentence,” and whether too much weight was attributed to the appellant's prior convictions. Additionally, the appeal questioned whether the sentences were disproportionate to the gravity of the offences and if the judge erred in considering the period of breached parole.

The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation and application of section 16(3B) of the Sentencing Act 1991. The court had to determine whether the trial judge appropriately balanced the appellant's criminal history against the severity of the current offences when determining the sentence. The appeal argued that the sentences imposed were excessive and did not adequately reflect the relative seriousness of the crimes committed.

Upon reviewing the trial judge's reasoning and the principles of sentencing under the Sentencing Act 1991, the court found that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant factors, including the appellant's prior criminal record and the seriousness of the current offences. The court concluded that the sentences were not manifestly excessive and did not constitute an “extraordinary sentence.” The court also found that the trial judge had not erred in considering the period of breached parole, as it was relevant to the sentencing process. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

No specific final orders were noted beyond the dismissal of the appeal.

Orders