R v Hall - [2007] VSCA 218

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 198 of 2006

THE QUEEN
	v.
PETER WILLIAM HALL

---

JUDGES:	CHERNOV and VINCENT JJA and WHELAN AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 September 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 September 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 218

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Armed Robbery – Asserted disparity in sentences between appellant and co-offender – Suggested wrongful consideration of the commission of other separate offences – Disparity justified - Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr D A Dann	Balmer & Associates

CHERNOV JA:

I will ask Whelan AJA to deliver the first judgment.

WHELAN AJA:

When first arraigned in the County Court, the appellant, Peter Hall, pleaded not guilty to a presentment containing five counts. The matter proceeded as a contested trial. After argument as to severance of the presentment and concerning admissibility of evidence, the appellant changed his plea to a plea of guilty.

Given the grounds of appeal now relied upon, it is unnecessary to refer to the circumstances of the offences in any detail.

In brief summary, on 11 December 2004, at approximately 4.35 a.m., the appellant carried out an invasion of the home of one of his neighbours. He was disguised at the time by a balaclava in which eye holes had been cut. He threatened the occupants, one of whom was a child, with an imitation firearm. His motivation was to obtain money. These circumstances were the foundation for a charge of aggravated burglary (count 1), a charge of being a prohibited person carrying an unregistered firearm (count 2), and a charge of attempted armed robbery (count 3).

Later that day, the appellant and an accomplice named Alexander Jadilebovski carried out an armed robbery on a chemist shop. They conducted reconnaissance together. The appellant entered the chemist shop and produced a firearm, which for these purposes I will assume was also an imitation, and demanded money. He stole cash from the till and money from the wallet of the person in the shop. Mr Jadilebovski waited outside in a car and drove the appellant away. These circumstances were the foundation for a charge of armed robbery (count 4), and a second charge of being a prohibited person carrying an unregistered firearm (count 5).

After hearing a plea consequent upon guilty pleas when re-arraigned, on 22 June 2006 a judge in the County Court imposed the following sentences:

Count 4 (armed robbery on the chemist shop): 4 years 6 months’ imprisonment (head sentence).
Count 1 (aggravated burglary on the neighbour): 3 years 6 months’ imprisonment, one year cumulative.
Count 2 (possession of unregistered firearm): 1 year imprisonment, 3 months cumulative.
Count 3 (attempted armed robbery on the neighbour): 2 years’ imprisonment, 6 months cumulative.
Count 5 (possession of unregistered firearm): 1 year imprisonment, 3 months cumulative.

The total effective sentence was six years and six months' imprisonment. The sentencing…

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 Hall

Details

AGLC: R v Hall [2007] VSCA 218
Case: [2007] VSCA 218
Decision Date: 27 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved an appeal by the appellant, Hall, against his sentence for armed robbery. Hall had been convicted along with a co-offender, and while the co-offender received a lesser sentence, Hall argued that the disparity was unjust and that the trial judge had wrongfully considered other separate offences committed by him. The matter was heard in the appellate court of the State of Victoria.

The primary legal issue was whether the trial judge had correctly exercised his discretion in imposing a sentence on the appellant, considering the disparity between the sentences of the appellant and his co-offender. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether the trial judge had improperly taken into account other unrelated offences committed by the appellant.

The court found that the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion and that the disparity in sentences was justified. The court held that the judge had not erred in considering the appellant's criminal history, including other offences, as it was relevant to the appellant's culpability and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court emphasised the importance of individualising sentences based on the circumstances of each offender, and found no grounds to interfere with the sentence imposed.

In light of the above, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence of the appellant was upheld. The court reaffirmed the trial judge's discretion in sentencing and the importance of considering the totality of an offender's criminal conduct.

Orders