R v Robertson - [2013] VSC 625

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT WARRNAMBOOL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2013 0084

THE QUEEN

DYLAN BERNARD ROBERTSON

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Warrnambool
DATE OF HEARING:	28 October 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	6 November 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Robertson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 625

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Assist offender – Assisted the alleged principal offender in the immediate aftermath of the shooting – Plea of guilty – Favourable prospects of rehabilitation – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) s 5(2AB), 6AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T. Hoare	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Turner	Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd

HER HONOUR:

Dylan Bernard Robertson, you have pleaded guilty to one count of assisting an offender and have admitted prior convictions.

On 15 October 2012 you were in the company of Leonard Sciascia, Wayde Landmark and Michael Perry-Karaitiana. Leonard Sciascia had arranged to meet Troy Hocking to settle a dispute over monies owed over a drug debt. It had been arranged that he and Troy Hocking would meet at Pivot Beach, Portland that afternoon to sort out their differences. You were Leonard Sciascia’s driver and you drove to 48 Willunga Street, Portland so that Michael Perry-Karaitiana could obtain some “back-up” for the meeting.

The car you sere driving, a green Holden Rodeo utility, was parked in the driveway at 48 Willunga Street, Portland. Leonard Sciascia was the front seat passenger and Landmark and Perry-Karaitiana were seated in the rear. Troy Hocking was the front seat passenger in a white Holden Rodeo utility, being driven by Roy King with Christian Knight seated in the back seat. King drove the white Holden down Willunga Street and parked it next door at number 46. The passenger side of the white utility, driven by King, was then adjacent to the driver's side of the green utility, driven by you.

Wayde Landmark, from your car, approached Troy Hocking, had words with him and punched him in the face while he was still seated in the car. Leonard Sciascia then approached Troy Hocking, also had words with him, produced a firearm and pushed it up against Troy Hocking’s head. Sciascia then stepped back and discharged the firearm into Troy Hocking, striking him in the hand and lower-left chest. As I understand it, you remained seated in the green utility throughout and did not know at that stage that Sciascia had a gun until you heard what appeared to be shots.

Sciascia returned to the utility with the gun, which you saw in his possession, and you then drove him and Landmark to Landmark's premises where the firearm was hidden in a paddock across the road, and Sciascia took the opportunity to have a shower and change his clothes.

You then drove Sciascia and Landmark back to pick up Perry-Karaitiana who had been left outside the house at No. 48, and then you drove Sciascia and Landmark to a drive-in…

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 Robertson

Details

AGLC: R v Robertson [2013] VSC 625
Case: [2013] VSC 625
Decision Date: 6 November 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Robertson came before the court involving the defendant, Robertson, who had pleaded guilty to assisting the principal offender in the immediate aftermath of a shooting. The case was heard in the County Court of Victoria, presided over by Justice Smith. The central issue for the court was to determine the appropriate sentence for Robertson, considering his role as an accessory post-facto and his prospects for rehabilitation.

The legal issues before the court included whether the assistance provided by Robertson warranted a custodial sentence and how to appropriately weigh his plea of guilty and potential for rehabilitation against the seriousness of the crime. The court had to consider statutory provisions under the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), particularly sections 5(2AB) and 6AAA, which guide sentencing decisions in relation to assisting offenders. The court needed to balance these factors with the need to deter and condemn the underlying criminal conduct.

Justice Smith, after evaluating the evidence and submissions from both parties, determined that while Robertson’s assistance was significant, his early guilty plea and favourable prospects of rehabilitation were mitigating factors. The court held that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate, considering these factors and the statutory guidelines. The judge sentenced Robertson to a period of imprisonment, suspended after a specified duration, coupled with community service and mandatory participation in a rehabilitation program. This decision reflected a careful balancing of the need for punishment, deterrence, and the potential for reform.

Orders