R v Lee - [2006] VSCA 80

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 207 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v.
REECE DANIEL LEE

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN, VINCENT and NEAVE, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	3 April 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 April 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSCA 80

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Armed robbery – False imprisonment – Parity between co-offenders – Appellant with significantly less criminal history than co-offender – Application of principle of parity where sentence of co-offender inadequate – Postiglione v. R. (1997) 189 C.L.R. 295 – Appeal allowed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S.E. Pullen, S.C.	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr J.P. Wheelahan	Matthew White & Associates

BUCHANAN, J.A.:

I will invite Vincent, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

VINCENT, J.A.:

At about 7.00 p.m. on Friday 27 August 2004, the appellant and a long-time friend named Peter Warren left the appellant's home in Meadow Heights in a Ford panel van being driven by the appellant. Warren told him that he needed money to pay a debt to a drug dealer and they agreed to commit an armed robbery to secure it.

After driving around the Broadmeadows area searching for an appropriate target, they eventually stopped in the vicinity of a milk bar in Railway Crescent which looked suitable and the appellant parked the van approximately 200 yards from the shop. They then alighted, with Warren arming himself with a black tyre lever approximately 30 to 40 centimetres in length that he found in the vehicle.

The two men then entered the milk bar, wearing hoods that covered most of their faces. At that stage, the proprietor, Domor Ramadan, was having a meal with his wife and three children in their residence at the rear. On hearing someone enter the shop, Mr Ramadan went to the counter. He was there approached by Warren, who was wielding the tyre lever above his head, while Lee stood nearby. Warren demanded money and, when Mr Ramadan refused to comply, he jumped over the counter and continued to threaten him with the tyre lever whilst demanding cash. A struggle ensued and Mr Ramadan was struck to the face by Warren with his fist and knocked to the floor. Whilst the unfortunate man was in this position, Warren kicked him in the head and chest region, rendering him unconscious.

The victim's wife, Saada Ramadan, entered the shop and saw her husband being struck. She was then confronted by the appellant, who forcibly grabbed her and, holding her by the arms, pushed her into the residence, closing the door separating the two parts of the premises. He then returned to the front counter and helped Warren steal approximately $500 from the cash register. Warren also grabbed eight to ten packets of cigarettes and the two men ran from the store.

After they had gone, Mrs Ramadan opened the door between the milk bar and the residence and found her husband lying behind 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 Lee

Details

AGLC: R v Lee [2006] VSCA 80
Case: [2006] VSCA 80
Decision Date: 6 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lee, the appellant, Lee, stood before the court as the accused in a case involving armed robbery and false imprisonment. The dispute centered on the sentencing for these serious offences, with Lee's appeal against his sentence being the main focus. Lee, along with a co-offender, was convicted for their roles in an armed robbery and subsequent false imprisonment. The sentence imposed on Lee was contested on the grounds that it did not adequately reflect the principle of parity between co-offenders, given that Lee had a significantly less extensive criminal history compared to his co-offender.

The court was tasked with determining whether the sentencing principle of parity between co-offenders was appropriately applied, considering the disparities in their respective criminal histories. The principle of parity, as established in Postiglione v. R., mandates that sentences for co-offenders should reflect their relative culpability and criminal histories. The court had to assess whether the lower sentence imposed on Lee, despite his lesser criminal background, adequately adhered to this principle. Additionally, the court had to consider the severity of the crimes committed and the impact of the armed robbery and false imprisonment on the victims.

Upon examining the principle of parity and its application in sentencing, the court found that Lee's sentence did not adequately reflect the disparities in criminal history between him and his co-offender. Given that Lee had a significantly less criminal history, the court determined that his sentence should have been more lenient to align with the principle of parity. The court held that the principle of parity was not appropriately applied in Lee's case, leading to the conclusion that his sentence was inadequate. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted for re-sentencing.

Orders