R v Pratt - [2003] VSCA 186

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 26 of 2002

THE QUEEN
	v.
CHRISTOPHER DONALD PRATT

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, A.C.J., PHILLIPS and EAMES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	30 October 2003
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	31 October 2003
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSCA 186

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Armed robbery – “Soft target” – Service station shop assistant threatened with blood-filled syringe – Applicant a Hepatitis C carrier – Applicant 34 years old – Serious prior convictions but none for nine years – Remorse and prospects of rehabilitation – Head Sentence of five years (non-parole period three years and six months) said to be highest for similar offences dealt with by Court of Appeal – Held, not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms R. Carlin with Mr B.L. Sonnet	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr C.B. Boyce	Victoria Legal Aid

WINNEKE, A.C.J.:

I will invite Justice Eames to give the first judgment in this appeal.

EAMES, J.A.:

Upon his plea of guilty the appellant was sentenced by a judge of the County Court on 30 August 2002 with respect to one count of armed robbery contrary to s.75A(1) of the Crimes Act 1958. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment and ordered to serve three years six months before being eligible for parole. The offence carried a maximum penalty of 25 years' imprisonment.

The offence occurred on 24 February 2002 when the appellant entered the shop at a Caltex service station in Laverton North armed with a syringe filled with his own blood. The appellant threatened the service station attendant by shouting at him and demanding that he give the appellant money from the till. The attendant handed him cash amounting to $390 and the appellant departed the store. After leaving the store the appellant rang a friend who picked him up in a taxi. Thereafter, the appellant obtained heroin which he paid for out of the proceeds of the robbery.

At the time of the offence, the appellant was aged 34 years and was aged 35 at the time of sentencing. He admitted 20 previous convictions and, additionally, two findings of guilt from 11 court appearances. Among the prior offences were a number of motor vehicle offences and two offences of dishonesty. The more important appearances were, first, a conviction for manslaughter in 1986 for which the appellant was sentenced to six years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and, secondly, in April 1993 he was convicted on counts of damaging property, causing injury intentionally and conduct likely to cause serious injury, for which offences he was released on a community-based order for a period of 12 months. Since April 1993 he appeared in court on three further occasions but on each case they were offences related to the operation of a commercial motor vehicle.

Thus, for a period of some nine years prior to this offence the appellant had not committed any offences of…

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 Pratt

Details

AGLC: R v Pratt [2003] VSCA 186
Case: [2003] VSCA 186
Decision Date: 31 October 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Pratt involved the appellant, a 34-year-old man with a history of serious prior convictions but none in the past nine years, who was convicted of armed robbery at a service station. The appellant threatened a shop assistant with a blood-filled syringe, which he claimed to be a carrier of Hepatitis C. This case was brought before the court of appeal in relation to the sentence imposed, which was argued to be the highest for similar offences. The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the sentence, which included a head sentence of five years with a non-parole period of three years and six months, was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the nature and circumstances of the offence, taking into account the threat posed to the victim and the appellant's criminal history. It also considered the appellant's age, the absence of recent convictions, and the display of remorse and prospects for rehabilitation. The court noted that the sentence was consistent with those handed down in comparable cases, even though it was the highest for similar offences dealt with by the Court of Appeal. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and upheld the original sentence imposed by the lower court.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence remained in place. The reasoning and outcome of the case emphasised the court's focus on proportionality and consistency in sentencing, taking into account the specific circumstances of each case while also considering broader sentencing principles and trends.

Orders