R v Jones - [2000] VSCA 204

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 27 of 2000

THE QUEEN

NICHOLAS JOHN JONES

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., CALLAWAY and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	16 October 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 October 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 204

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Recklessly causing serious injury – 17-year-old offender – Sentence of two years’ detention in Youth Training Centre not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. P.A. Coghlan, Q.C.	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr. G.H. Cantwell	Perillo McFarlane Pty.

WINNEKE, P.:

Nicholas Jones, who is now aged 19 years, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Morwell on 18 February of this year to one count of intentionally causing injury and one count of recklessly causing serious injury. Those offences carried maximum penalties of 10 years and 15 years respectively. The offences occurred at Cowes on the night of 12 December 1998, when the appellant was aged 17 years.

The assaults which gave rise to the offences were separated only by a short period of time and the victim was the same man in each case. Although the appellant had no prior convictions, the sentencing judge formed a dim view of his role in the assaults and sentenced him to six months' detention in a youth training centre on the first count and 18 months' youth training on the second count. He ordered those sentences to be served cumulatively, and accordingly the total effective sentence was one of two years. By leave granted, the appellant appeals to this Court, primarily on the ground that the sentences imposed are manifestly excessive. There are a number of other grounds stated in the notice of appeal but they are in the main, as I see them, particulars of the ground that the sentence is manifestly excessive.

Before turning to those grounds it is necessary to refer briefly to the facts as found by his Honour. The victim of the assaults had attended a pre-Christmas dinner party in a Cowes restaurant on the night of 12 December. He and the company of which, as I understand it, he was the principal, provided radiography services to the Warley Hospital on Phillip Island, and the dinner was attended by members of the hospital staff. At about 11.15 p.m. and after the main meal, the victim had left the restaurant and had gone outside for a "smoke". Thereafter he remembers very little, because, as a consequence of the severe closed head injury which he received, he is unable to recall the events which preceded the injury which he sustained. Indeed, after the events, he was airlifted to the Alfred Hospital, where he remained for over a month before being released into the Grace McKellar rehabilitation unit, where he remained for a considerable time thereafter. The fact that he has made what appears to be a good recovery from the very serious head injury is the result,…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2000] VSCA 204
Case: [2000] VSCA 204
Decision Date: 16 October 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jones, the appellant, a 17-year-old, was convicted of recklessly causing serious injury to another individual. The matter was brought before the court to determine the appropriate sentence for the offence committed. The appellant was sentenced to two years' detention in a Youth Training Centre. The appellant contested the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive, and thus appealed the decision. The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and thus warranted a reduction. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing for young offenders, the gravity of the offence, and the circumstances surrounding the offence to determine the appropriateness of the sentence.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for young offenders, which emphasise rehabilitation and the lesser culpability of juveniles. It also considered the gravity of the offence, which involved causing serious injury to another person, and the appellant's lack of prior criminal history. The court noted that the sentence imposed was within the range of sentences typically imposed for similar offences and took into account the appellant's age and potential for rehabilitation. The court found that the sentence of two years' detention in a Youth Training Centre was not manifestly excessive and was appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

In conclusion, the court upheld the sentence imposed by the lower court, finding that it was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised the importance of considering the principles of sentencing for young offenders, the gravity of the offence, and the circumstances of the case when determining an appropriate sentence. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, and the sentence of two years' detention in a Youth Training Centre was upheld.

Orders