Legal Research
Cases
R v Lefebure

R v Lefebure

Case [2000] VSCA 79 12 April 2000

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 286 of 1998
No. 317 of 1998

THE QUEEN

CHRISTOPHER PAUL LEFEBURE and
RICHARD ROBERT LEFEBURE

---

JUDGES:	TADGELL and CHERNOV, JJ.A. and HEDIGAN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	12 April 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 April 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 79

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Armed robbery – Motor vehicle used by offenders to reach scene of crime and as intended means of escape.
Sentence – Cancellation of driving licences and periods of disqualification ordered on footing that crime committed "in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle" within the meaning of Road Safety Act 1986, s.28(1)(b). Failure of sentencing judge to consider matters properly to be taken into account in determining length of period of disqualification.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C.J. Ryan	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellants	Mr M.A. Gamble	Victoria Legal Aid

TADGELL, J.A.:

The appellants, Christopher Paul Lefebure and Richard Robert Lefebure, are brothers aged 23 and 20 years respectively. They pleaded guilty in the County Court on 19 October 1998, together with another young man named Allis, to one count of armed robbery. After a plea in mitigation, all three were sentenced on 19 November 1998 to terms of imprisonment. Christopher Lefebure and Allis were each sentenced to 30 months' imprisonment of which 26 months were suspended for three years. Richard Lefebure was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment to be served by way of an intensive correction order. Christopher Lefebure and Allis were ordered to provide intimate forensic samples pursuant to sub-s.(2) of s.464ZF of the Crimes Act. Finally, an order was made pursuant to s.28(1)(b) of the Road Safety Act 1986 in the case of each of the three men that all driving licences and permits held by them respectively be cancelled and that they be disqualified for a period of three years from obtaining another.

Christopher gave notice of intention to apply for leave to appeal against sentence on 23 November 1998 and, having obtained an extension of time to do so, Richard lodged a notice on 21 December 1998. In each case the sole ground taken was that the sentencing judge erred in fixing a period of disqualification from obtaining a licence (three years) which was manifestly excessive. Leave to appeal was granted by the President of this Court to each of the present appellants on 8 December last year, when each appeared before him in person. The Court today, without demur from the Crown, allowed two more grounds to be added to each of the appellants' notices - or rather, one more ground with two limbs, namely this, that the learned sentencing judge erred in the exercise of his sentencing discretion when he cancelled the appellant's licence to drive and disqualified him from being re-licensed for three years, in that (a) he failed to have any or any sufficient regard to the principle of rehabilitation and (b)…

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 Lefebure

Details

AGLC: R v Lefebure [2000] VSCA 79
Case: [2000] VSCA 79
Decision Date: 12 April 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Lefebure, the appellants were convicted of armed robbery and other related offences. They used a motor vehicle to travel to the location of the crime and intended to use it as their means of escape. The case came before the court to determine the appropriate sentence, including the cancellation of the appellants' driving licences and the imposition of periods of disqualification. The court was required to consider the provisions of the Road Safety Act 1986, specifically section 28(1)(b), which pertains to crimes committed "in connection with the driving of a motor vehicle."

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge had properly considered all relevant matters in determining the appropriate length of the disqualification periods. The appellants argued that the sentencing judge failed to consider certain factors that should have been taken into account when deciding the length of the disqualification periods. The court needed to examine whether the sentencing judge had exercised their discretion correctly and whether there had been any error in the assessment of the appropriate disqualification periods.

The court concluded that the sentencing judge had not properly considered all the matters that should have been taken into account when determining the length of the disqualification periods. The court found that the sentencing judge had failed to consider the appellants' previous good driving records and the fact that the motor vehicle was used as a means of escape rather than as a weapon. As a result, the court found that the sentencing judge's assessment of the appropriate disqualification periods was flawed. The court ordered that the sentences be set aside and remitted the matter to the sentencing judge for reconsideration.

The court ordered that the sentences be set aside and the matter be remitted to the sentencing judge for reconsideration, taking into account all relevant matters, including the appellants' previous good driving records and the role of the motor vehicle in the commission of the crime. The court did not specify the exact disqualification periods but left it to the sentencing judge to determine the appropriate length after considering all relevant factors.

Orders