R v Propsting - [2009] VSCA 45

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 748 of 2007

THE QUEEN
	v
NICHOLAS PROPSTING

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and VINCENT JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 March 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	5 March 2009
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSCA 45

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Possession and production of child pornography –Aggravated burglary – Intentionally causing serious injury – Breach of intervention order – Sentencing judge erred in sentencing appellant as a serious offender and finding that offences were revealed without first alerting counsel to the issue – Appellant re-sentenced.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C J Ryan SC	Mr S Ward, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr C B Boyce	Victoria Legal Aid

BUCHANAN JA:

I will ask Vincent JA to deliver the first judgment in this matter.

VINCENT JA:

The appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court at Warrnambool to two counts of possession of child pornography (counts 1 and 3), one of producing child pornography (count 2), one of aggravated burglary (count 4), and two of intentionally causing serious injury (counts 5 and 6). He also pleaded guilty to two charges which had been uplifted from the Magistrates' Court, arising from breaches of an intervention order. He had two findings of guilt and 16 previous convictions from eight court appearances between 9 November 1993 and 10 November 1996.

The sentencing judge summarised his criminal history as follows:

Your prior offending includes alcohol and drug offences, street offences, two charges of being in possession of a regulated weapon, using a firearm without a licence, wilful damage, one count of intentionally or recklessly causing injury, and one count of causing injury intentionally. Most importantly, on the last time you were before the court in November 1998, you faced charges of false imprisonment and committing an indecent act with a child under 16, as well as intentionally damaging property and the possession of cannabis. On that occasion you were sentenced to a total of nine months' imprisonment. I am told that the charges of false imprisonment and committing an indecent act with a child under 16 arose when you went to a house in Portland looking for a woman who had an eleven-year-old daughter who was alone at the time in her home. You attacked this girl by grabbing her, and then rubbed her groin and asked her to have sex with you. When she ran away you tore the phone off the wall of the house so that she could not contact anyone, then ran away yourself.

After hearing a plea in mitigation of penalty, the judge, on 23 August 2007, imposed upon the appellant the following sentences:
Count 1, possession of child pornography:   6 months' imprisonment, which was used as the base sentence.
Count 2, producing child pornography:   2 years' imprisonment.
Count 3, possession of child pornography:   18 months' imprisonment.
Count 4, aggravated burglary:   12 years' imprisonment.
Count 5, intentionally causing serious injury:   5 years' imprisonment.
Count 6,…

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 Propsting

Details

AGLC: R v Propsting [2009] VSCA 45
Case: [2009] VSCA 45
Decision Date: 5 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Propsting, the appellant stood before the court on various charges, including possession and production of child pornography, aggravated burglary, intentionally causing serious injury, and breaching an intervention order. The Court of Appeal for the State of Victoria was tasked with reviewing the original sentencing decision to ensure its correctness and proportionality. The court had to consider whether the original sentencing judge had correctly identified the appellant as a serious offender and whether the process followed was procedurally fair.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the sentencing judge erred in his characterisation of the appellant as a serious offender and whether the appellant was given adequate notice and opportunity to respond to the aggravating factors considered by the judge. The court was required to examine the evidence presented at the original trial and the reasoning behind the judge’s decision to determine if there were any procedural or substantive errors that warranted a reconsideration of the sentence.

The court found that the sentencing judge had erred in characterising the appellant as a serious offender without first alerting counsel to the issue and providing an opportunity to respond. The court also noted that the judge did not properly consider the mitigating factors and the appellant's prospects for rehabilitation. Consequently, the court re-sentenced the appellant, taking into account the totality of the circumstances and the need to ensure that the sentence was proportionate and just. The final orders reflected the court’s determination, adjusting the sentence to address the procedural shortcomings and ensuring that the re-sentencing process was fair and transparent.

Orders