R v Martin - [2005] VSCA 140

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 31 of 2005

THE QUEEN
	v.
TONY ROBERT MARTIN	No. 57 of 2005
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v. TONY ROBERT MARTIN

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES and EAMES, JJ.A. and BYRNE, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	18 May 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 June 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 140

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Verdicts not unsafe and unsatisfactory – Verdicts of guilty not inconsistent with verdicts of not guilty – Sentence – Director’s appeal – Sentences inadequate – Appeal dismissed notwithstanding – Delay – Respondent released following completion of sentence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C., D.P.P. with Ms M. Williams	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant/ Respondent	Mr L. Lasry, Q.C. with Mr D.A. Dann	Macpherson & Kelley

CHARLES, J.A.:

Having read the reasons for judgment prepared by Byrne, A.J.A., I agree that the application for leave to appeal against conviction should be dismissed, substantially for the reasons his Honour gives.

Two principal grounds were argued in this application. The claim that the verdicts of guilty on counts 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 are unsafe and unsatisfactory requires this Court to scrutinise the evidence called by the Crown and make its own independent assessment of the evidence; see M v. The Queen[1]. As was there said, in most cases a doubt experienced by an appellate court will be a doubt which a jury ought also to have experienced. Having carefully read the evidence of Ms O’Callaghan, together with the supporting medical evidence, I am not left in any doubt that there was sufficient material before the jury to entitle them to convict the accused, and accordingly that the verdicts of guilty are neither unsafe nor unsatisfactory.
[1](1994) 181 C.L.R. 487 at 492, 493 and 494.

I reject the submission that the verdicts of guilty are inconsistent with the verdicts of not guilty on counts 1, 4 and 5. The relevant general propositions on a claim of inconsistency are to be found in MacKenzie v. The Queen[2]. In my opinion, the verdicts of guilty were supported by the evidence of Ms O’Callaghan, together with other independent evidence such as that of her father and medical staff who had treated her injuries. The verdicts of not guilty related to allegations which were not included in the complainant’s first statement to the police and were understandable given the whole of the relevant evidence. The differing verdicts to my mind establish no more than that the jury undertook their task conscientiously and assessed the consistency and reliability of the evidence as it related separately to each count.
[2](1996) 190 C.L.R. 348 at 365-8.

As to the Director’s appeal, I also agree that the appeals should be dismissed.

The respondent had been found guilty of a series of violent and cowardly attacks upon his then partner over a period of some years. He had shown no remorse for his conduct,…

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 Martin

Details

AGLC: R v Martin [2005] VSCA 140
Case: [2005] VSCA 140
Decision Date: 2 June 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Martin involved the respondent, Martin, who was charged with several criminal offences. The nature of the dispute was the adequacy of the sentences imposed by the trial judge following Martin's conviction on multiple counts. The appeal against the sentences was heard by the relevant appellate court in Australia. The central legal issue before the court was whether the sentences imposed by the trial judge were inadequate, warranting an increase in the penalty. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the delay in the appeal proceedings, which resulted in Martin completing his sentence before the appeal was heard, should affect the outcome of the appeal.

The court carefully examined the sentences handed down by the trial judge and considered the principles of sentencing, including the need for deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation. It was noted that the trial judge had considered the relevant aggravating and mitigating factors in arriving at the sentences. The appellate court found that while the sentences might be considered lenient by some, they were not so inadequate as to warrant an increase. The court emphasised that the trial judge was in the best position to assess the appropriate sentence based on the specific circumstances of the case. The delay in the appeal proceedings was also considered but did not impact the court's determination on the adequacy of the sentences.

In conclusion, the appellate court dismissed the Director's appeal against the sentences, finding them to be adequate. The delay in the proceedings, which resulted in Martin completing his sentence, did not alter the court's assessment of the sentences' adequacy. The appeal was dismissed, and no orders were made to alter the sentences. This outcome underscored the importance of respecting the trial judge's sentencing discretion, provided it is exercised within the bounds of the law and is not manifestly excessive or inadequate.

Orders