R. v. Ponton - [2001] VSCA 36

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 229 of 2000

THE QUEEN
	v.
JASON REX PONTON

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS and BATT, JJ.A. and COLDREY, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	19 March 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 March 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 36

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - Armed robbery - On lone service station attendant at night while offender on parole for armed robbery and other serious offences - Imprisonment for four and a half years with a three year non-parole period not manifestly excessive - No exceptional circumstances within s.16(3B) of Sentencing Act 1991.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. C.J. Ryan	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr. M.R. Simon	McLennans

PHILLIPS, J.A.:

I will ask Batt, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

BATT, J.A.:

The appellant, Jason Rex Ponton, pleaded guilty on arraignment in the County Court on 4 August 2000 to one count of armed robbery and admitted 20 previous convictions or findings of guilt from four court appearances. The maximum penalty for armed robbery is imprisonment for 25 years. The judge heard a plea in mitigation of penalty during which the appellant's mother gave evidence and various certificates, references and the like were tendered. On 11 August 2000 he sentenced the appellant to be imprisoned for a term of four years and six months and fixed a non-parole period of three years. He declared that the period of 157 days should be reckoned as already served under the sentence.

The appellant appeals pursuant to leave granted by a single Judge of Appeal on 27 October 2000. The grounds of appeal are that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge failed to take into account the appellant's "chance for rehabilitation in the future".

The essential facts of the offence are as follows. Shortly before 3 a.m. on Saturday 4 March 2000 the appellant entered a service station in Deer Park. He had taken with him a sports bag, had armed himself with a metal claw hammer and had disguised himself with a balaclava fashioned from some tracksuit pants. He had decided to go to the service station to rob it of money and cigarettes. On entering, he confronted the sole attendant in the store at the time, a male. He demanded cash, telling the attendant that he did not want to hurt him. He held the hammer up to show the attendant. The latter, believing he would be hit, gave the appellant access to the cash register and the appellant took money out of the till and placed it in the sports bag. He then told the attendant to take the money out for him. As he said that, he pointed the hammer at the attendant. The latter complied. The appellant

made a demand for cigarettes. The attendant started to put cigarettes in a shopping bag for the appellant. The appellant then asked for the attendant's wallet and car keys. The attendant said that…

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. Ponton

Details

AGLC: R. v. Ponton [2001] VSCA 36
Case: [2001] VSCA 36
Decision Date: 19 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R. v. Ponton involved the appellant, who was convicted of armed robbery committed against a lone service station attendant at night. The offence occurred while the appellant was on parole for a previous armed robbery conviction and other serious offences. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the appellant's latest crime. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive, while the prosecution contended that the sentence was appropriate and did not constitute a manifestly excessive punishment.

The court was required to decide whether the sentence of imprisonment for four and a half years, with a non-parole period of three years, was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether there were exceptional circumstances that warranted a departure from the general principles of sentencing as outlined in section 16(3B) of the Sentencing Act 1991. The appellant argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive and that there were exceptional circumstances that should be considered.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was within the range of sentences that could be imposed for the offence. The court also found that there were no exceptional circumstances within the meaning of section 16(3B) of the Sentencing Act 1991 that warranted a departure from the general principles of sentencing. The appellant's previous criminal history and the seriousness of the current offence were considered in determining the appropriate sentence. The court held that the sentence was appropriate and did not constitute a manifestly excessive punishment.

The final orders of the court were that the appeal against sentence was dismissed. The court upheld the original sentence imposed by the lower court, which was imprisonment for four and a half years with a non-parole period of three years. The court found that the sentence was appropriate and did not constitute a manifestly excessive punishment, and that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted a departure from the general principles of sentencing.

Orders