R v Roberts - [2000] VSCA 46

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 33 of 1999

THE QUEEN

v.

RAYMOND LEONARD ROBERTS

---

JUDGES:

CHARLES and CALLAWAY, JJ.A. and COLDREY, A.J.A.

WHERE HELD:

MELBOURNE

DATE OF HEARING:

23 March 2000

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

23 March 2000

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2000] VSCA 46

---

Criminal law - Sentence - Rape and related offences against children - Psychiatric report obtained after plea adjourned - Application for adjournment of further hearing for submissions on report - Procedural fairness - Sentences quashed - Exceptional circumstances justifying remitting matter for rehearing - Crimes Act 1958 s.568(5).
---

APPEARANCES:
Counsel Solicitors

For the Crown
Mr B. Kayser
P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

For the Applicant Mr R.J. Marron Victoria Legal Aid
CHARLES, J. A.:
1 The applicant, who was born on 9 October 1945, pleaded guilty on 27 November 1998 in the County Court at Melbourne to a presentment containing one count of rape (count 1), one count of assault with intent to commit an indictable offence (count 2), and one count of committing an indecent act with a child under the age of 16 (count 3). The applicant also pleaded guilty to four charges of loitering, pursuant to s.60B(2)(b)(ii) of the Crimes Act 1958. The plea hearing was adjourned part-heard for the purpose of obtaining a psychiatric report, the preparation of which was ordered by the judge. The judge reserved to counsel for the applicant the right to address him on the report.

2 On 25 February 1999, the judge sentenced the applicant to imprisonment on count 1 for six years, on count 2 for six months, on count 3 for one year and on charges 4 to 8 to three months' imprisonment on each charge. His Honour directed that three months of the sentence on count 2, six months of the sentence on count 3 and one month on each of charges 4 to 8 all be served cumulatively on the sentence imposed on count 1. The total effective sentence was therefore seven years and one month, and his Honour fixed a non-parole period of four years.

3 The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence on the grounds that -

1.he was denied natural justice by the failure of the learned judge to allow the applicant's counsel to put submissions on the psychiatric report and respond to the submissions of the prosecutor on sentence.
2.the sentence was manifestly excessive in all the circumstances.

4 The circumstances giving rise to the offences were as follows. On 28 March 1998 AC, a six year-old girl, went with her mother and grandmother to the toy department on the 6th floor of Myer's store in Lonsdale Street, Melbourne. They arrived there at about 4.50 p.m. And AC began to play with toys on the floor in an area around which boxes were piled. The applicant was at first seated on a display unit next to the boxes and then sat down beside AC with his left arm around…

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 Roberts

Details

AGLC: R v Roberts [2000] VSCA 46
Case: [2000] VSCA 46
Decision Date: 23 March 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Roberts presented to the court involved the defendant, Roberts, who had pleaded guilty to various serious offences, including rape and related offences against children. The sentencing hearing was adjourned to allow for the preparation of a psychiatric report, which was crucial for the court's consideration of an appropriate sentence. Following the report's submission, Roberts' legal counsel sought an adjournment to allow for further submissions based on the report, which was denied. The defendant's sentence was subsequently imposed, and he appealed on the grounds that the denial of the adjournment was a breach of procedural fairness and that it amounted to a significant error in the proceedings.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the denial of the adjournment constituted a breach of procedural fairness and whether the error was so significant as to warrant the quashing of the sentence under the provisions of the Crimes Act 1958. The court had to consider the principles of procedural fairness and the appropriate remedy when such fairness has been compromised. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the exceptional circumstances existed to justify remitting the matter for rehearing, as provided under s.568(5) of the Crimes Act 1958.

In examining the issues, the court found that the denial of the adjournment did indeed breach the principles of procedural fairness as it prevented the defendant from adequately presenting his case. The court recognised that the psychiatric report was critical to the sentencing process and that the defendant's right to make full submissions was prejudiced by the refusal to adjourn. Given the significance of the error and its impact on the fairness of the proceedings, the court concluded that the sentences imposed were flawed and should be quashed. The exceptional circumstances under s.568(5) of the Crimes Act 1958 were deemed to exist, warranting the matter to be remitted for rehearing to ensure a fair and just outcome.

Consequently, the court ordered that the sentences imposed on Roberts be quashed and that the matter be remitted for rehearing to allow for the full and fair consideration of all relevant submissions, including those based on the psychiatric report. This decision underscored the importance of procedural fairness in criminal proceedings and the necessity for courts to ensure that all parties have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly.

Orders