R v Priest - [2002] VSCA 215

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 152 of 2002

THE QUEEN
	v.
LAL GEOFFREY PRIEST DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS v. LAL GEOFFREY PRIEST
	No. 180 of 2002

---

JUDGES:	ORMISTON and CALLAWAY, JJ.A. and O'BRYAN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	19 and 20 November 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 December 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 215

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Armed robbery - Evidence of unrelated criminality - Whether directions thereon sufficient - Whether prosecutor suggested applicant should call certain witnesses - Whether direction required - Whether Jones v. Dunkel direction should have been given against the Crown - Whether certain evidence was insufficiently relevant to be admissible - Whether jury should have been directed to exclude that evidence from their consideration - Whether aggregation of defects caused trial to miscarry - Prosecution case dependent on uncorroborated evidence of accomplice - Whether verdict unsafe and unsatisfactory - Crown appeal against sentence - Sentence of four years' imprisonment with non-parole period of two years manifestly inadequate - Double jeopardy - Parity with co-offenders - Delay - Sentence of five years' imprisonment with non-parole period of three years substituted - Crimes Act 1958, ss.567A(1), 568(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, QC, DPP Ms S. Pullen	Ms K. Robertson Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant/ Respondent	Mr D. Grace, QC	Pryles & Defteros

ORMISTON, J.A.:

On this application for leave to appeal against conviction and on the Director’s cross-appeal against sentence I have had the benefit of reading in draft form the reasons for judgment of Callaway, J.A. I agree, for the reasons he has stated, that the application should be dismissed and I likewise agree, for his stated reasons, that the Director’s appeal should be allowed, though I agree in the proposed new sentence only with some reluctance. My reluctance again goes to the modest sentence which is being substituted for a truly serious and reprehensible armed robbery. The Court is constrained by two judicially propounded rules, those of double jeopardy relating to sentence and those relating to parity and disparity in sentencing, to impose a sentence far less than that which the respondent Priest deserved. The circumstances of the offending are set out in the judgment of Callaway, J.A., which shows that there were factors of planning and high danger to those involved in their daily activities which made it an armed robbery which called for condign punishment. For the present I would merely reiterate that offending of this seriousness ordinarily deserves a significantly higher sentence and that the outcome of this case should not be used as the basis for sentencing a person found guilty of a similar offence in the future.

CALLAWAY, J.A.:

Introduction

After a trial in the County Court lasting five days Lal Geoffrey Priest was found guilty on one count of armed robbery. Following a plea, the learned trial judge sentenced him to four years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years. Priest seeks…

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 Priest

Details

AGLC: R v Priest [2002] VSCA 215
Case: [2002] VSCA 215
Decision Date: 19 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the respondent, who was convicted of armed robbery. The respondent sought to have the conviction quashed and a retrial ordered on the basis that the trial was unfair. The respondent also sought to appeal the sentence. The Crown appealed the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate.

The issues included whether the directions given to the jury regarding the evidence of unrelated criminality were sufficient, whether a direction regarding the suggestion that the applicant should call certain witnesses was required, and whether a Jones v Dunkel direction should have been given against the Crown. The court also considered whether certain evidence was inadmissible due to insufficient relevance and whether the jury should have been directed to exclude it. The court examined whether the aggregation of defects caused the trial to miscarry, whether the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory, and whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The court found that the directions given to the jury were sufficient, and no further direction was required. The court also found that the evidence of unrelated criminality was not inadmissible and did not cause the trial to miscarry. The court found that the verdict was safe and satisfactory, and the sentence was not manifestly inadequate. The court substituted a sentence of five years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years.

The court substituted the sentence of five years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of three years. The court found that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and did not achieve the purposes of sentencing. The court also found that the delay in bringing the appeal did not prejudice the respondent. The court found that the new sentence achieved parity with the co-offenders and was appropriate in the circumstances.

Orders