R v Rongonui-Chase - [2004] VSCA 25

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 74 of 2003

THE QUEEN
	v.
ROBERT RONGONUI-CHASE

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., COLDREY and BONGIORNO, A.JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	18 February 2004
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 March 2004
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSCA 25

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Affray, intentionally causing serious injury and attempted armed robbery – Youthful offender – Whether obligatory for sentencer to obtain pre-sentence report – Whether principles referred to in R. v. Tsiaras applicable – Whether sentence manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. R. A. Elston	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr. L.C. Carter	Dotchin & Co.

WINNEKE, P.:

I agree with Coldrey, A.J.A., and for the reasons which he gives, that the appeal against the sentences imposed by the County Court Judge should be allowed; that the sentences imposed below should be quashed and that in lieu the sentences proposed by Coldrey, A.J.A. be substituted.

COLDREY, A.J.A.:

The appellant, Robert Rongonui-Chase is currently aged 18 and was aged 17 at the time of the offences, the subject of this appeal. On 13 March 2003, the appellant pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to the offence of affray and two charges of intentionally causing serious injury (committed on 3 August 2002). These offences constituted Counts 1-3 on the presentment. The appellant also pleaded guilty to the offence of affray and recklessly causing injury committed on 4 August 2002 (Counts 4 and 5). Further, the appellant pleaded guilty to three charges of attempted armed robbery and one of theft, all committed on 11 September 2002 (Counts 6-9).

On 14 March 2003 he was sentenced to the following periods of imprisonment: Count 1, Affray - 18 months; Count 2, Intentionally Causing Serious Injury - 12 months; Count 3, Intentionally Causing Serious Injury - 2 years 6 months; Count 4, Affray - 12 months; Count 5, Recklessly Cause Injury - 6 months; Counts 6, 7, 8, Attempted Armed Robbery - 2 years 6 months on each; and Count 9, Theft - 1 month. Six months of Count 1, all of Count 4, and 12 months of Count 6 were ordered to be served cumulatively upon Count 3. This produced a total effective sentence of 5 years' imprisonment. A non-parole period of 2 years 9 months was fixed and 34 days pre-sentence detention was declared to have been served.

The maximum penalty for affray is 5 years; for intentionally causing serious injury, 20 years; for recklessly causing injury, 5 years; for attempted armed robbery, 20 years; and for theft, 10 years.

The appellant admitted 26 previous findings of guilt from four Children's Court appearances between 14 May 1998 and 13 March 2001 and admitted 35 previous convictions from six Children's Court appearances between 25 May 2001 and 27 March 2002. These offences include three charges of robbery, one charge of affray, one charge of intentionally causing injury, one charge of intentionally causing serious injury, eight assault…

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 Rongonui-Chase

Details

AGLC: R v Rongonui-Chase [2004] VSCA 25
Case: [2004] VSCA 25
Decision Date: 12 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Rongonui-Chase involved the defendant, who was charged with affray, intentionally causing serious injury, and attempted armed robbery. The matter was heard in the relevant court, where the defendant's sentence was the primary focus of the proceedings. The defendant, a youthful offender, was subject to scrutiny regarding the necessity of obtaining a pre-sentence report and the applicability of the principles outlined in R v Tsiaras. Furthermore, the court was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The central legal issues revolved around the mandatory requirement for the sentencer to obtain a pre-sentence report, the relevance of the principles mentioned in R v Tsiaras, and the proportionality of the sentence. The court had to consider whether the principles from R v Tsiaras, which address the sentencing of youthful offenders, were applicable in this instance and if the sentence imposed was disproportionate to the crimes committed.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the principles set forth in R v Tsiaras, which emphasise the need for a tailored approach to sentencing youthful offenders, taking into account their age and potential for rehabilitation. The court determined that while the principles were relevant, they were not obligatory in every case. Additionally, the court considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, ultimately finding that it was not. The court's reasoning was grounded in the specific circumstances of the case, the nature of the offences, and the defendant's background.

The court concluded that while the principles from R v Tsiaras were pertinent, they did not necessitate the preparation of a pre-sentence report in this instance. Furthermore, the sentence imposed was deemed proportionate to the offences committed, and the court found it not to be manifestly excessive. Consequently, the sentence was upheld, reflecting a balanced approach to the sentencing of youthful offenders.

Orders