R v Ray and Vella - [2014] VSC 165

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

Nos. 0136 & 0137 of 2013

THE QUEEN

JACK RAY

-and-

NICHOLAS VELLA

First Accused

Second Accused

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 April 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	11 April 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Ray and Vella
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 165

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Aggravated burglary – False imprisonment – Two accused - Confrontational aggravated burglary in the context of dispute concerning stolen property – Serious example of the offence of aggravated burglary – Young offenders – Remorse and prospects for rehabilitation high – Offer to plead guilty made at early stage by one of the accused - Impact of general deterrence, denunciation and punishment softened by mitigating features – First accused sentenced to three years’ imprisonment with a minimum period before parole eligibility of two years – Second accused sentenced to two years nine months’ imprisonment with a minimum period before parole eligibility of one year nine months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A. Grant	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the First Accused	Mr C. Dane QC	James Dowsley & Associates
For the Second Accused	Mr S. Johns	Robert Stary Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Jack Ray and Nicholas Vella, you have both been convicted by a jury of the crimes of aggravated burglary and false imprisonment. You have been acquitted of the offence of manslaughter after successful no case submissions were made on your behalves.

Christopher Meade was 29 years old. He, like yourselves, grew up in the Diamond Creek area. He was a qualified plumber who specialised in the maintenance of air conditioners. Regrettably, it seems the period towards the end of his life was characterised by drug abuse, drug dealing and handling stolen goods. You both knew Chris Meade and had worked with him at Oz Cool, a business dealing with the installation and maintenance of air conditioning systems.

On 19 May 2012, a sporting business in Greensborough known as the Fight Factory was burgled. Sporting clothing was stolen. You, Mr Vella, were friends with the owner of that business, Scott Gregory. You became aware that Chris Meade was offering for sale clothing apparently from that burglary and you undertook to your friend that you would retrieve some or all of the stolen goods.

Six days later on 25 May 2012, a burglary and theft occurred at 746 Yan Yean Road, Yarrambat. This was your family house Mr Ray, and property was stolen from your bungalow area at this address. Amongst other things your Play Station 3 was stolen. Your mother observed a brownie/gold coloured car parked nearby and you, Jack Ray, formed the belief that Chris Meade had broken into your bungalow and stolen your property. You confronted him that afternoon but it appears that he denied any knowledge or involvement in the burglary. Mr Meade drove a gold-coloured car and made a gift of a…

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 Ray and Vella

Details

AGLC: R v Ray and Vella [2014] VSC 165
Case: [2014] VSC 165
Decision Date: 11 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Ray and Vella involves two defendants who were jointly charged with aggravated burglary and false imprisonment. The dispute arose from an incident where the accused confronted a person in relation to a dispute concerning stolen property. The case was heard in the higher court of Queensland. The legal issues before the court were primarily concerned with the appropriate sentencing for the offences committed, taking into account various factors such as the nature of the crime, the circumstances, and the characteristics of the offenders.

The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence for each offender, considering the seriousness of the offence, the context in which it was committed, and the personal circumstances of the offenders. The court also had to balance the need for general deterrence and denunciation with the potential for rehabilitation and remorse shown by the offenders. The court found that the offence was a serious example of aggravated burglary, involving a confrontational element in the context of a dispute over stolen property. However, the court recognised that both offenders were young and had shown remorse and had high prospects for rehabilitation, which were mitigating factors. Additionally, one of the offenders had made an offer to plead guilty at an early stage, which was another mitigating factor.

The court ultimately decided that the first offender should be sentenced to three years' imprisonment with a minimum period before parole eligibility of two years. The second offender was sentenced to two years and nine months’ imprisonment with a minimum period before parole eligibility of one year and nine months. The court took into account the mitigating factors and the offer to plead guilty, but also emphasised the need for general deterrence and denunciation. The court found that the mitigating factors were significant enough to reduce the severity of the sentences, but not so significant as to completely overlook the seriousness of the offences committed. The court's decision reflects the need to balance the various considerations involved in sentencing, including the nature of the offence, the circumstances, and the characteristics of the offenders.

Orders