R v Rowlands - [2007] VSCA 14

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 114 of 2006

THE QUEEN
	v.
RICKEY WAYNE ROWLANDS

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN and EAMES, JJ.A. and KELLAM, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6 February 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 February 2007
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSCA 14

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Armed robbery – Plea of guilty – Utility of sentencing statistics – Sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment with a minimum term of two years’ imprisonment not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J.D. McArdle, QC	Ms A. Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr S.A. Moglia	Lewenberg & Lewenberg

BUCHANAN, JA:

The appellant was granted leave by a single judge of this Court to appeal from a sentence of four years and six months' imprisonment with a minimum term of two years' imprisonment which was imposed upon him when he pleaded guilty to a presentment containing one count of armed robbery.

The robbery took place in the early afternoon of 21 August 2005, at a time when the appellant was on bail. The appellant, a co-offender, Mark Jacobs, and the appellant's sister drove in a motor car from Keilor Park to North Melbourne. The car was parked in a lane in North Melbourne. The appellant and Jacobs alighted from the car and approached a shop, the appellant wearing a black balaclava and carrying a long knife. The appellant entered the shop, approached the cash register and confronted one of the owners of the shop. The appellant grabbed her by the arm or shoulder, showed her the knife and said several times, "Give me the money." The appellant pushed the owner out of the way and went to the cash register, pressing the buttons with an intent to open it, although without success. The owner's husband entered the shop and pulled his wife outside. The owners attempted to hold the shop door closed, imprisoning the appellant. The appellant picked up the cash register, containing some $500, and forced his way out of the shop and ran back towards the car. The appellant got into the car with the cash register and drove off with his sister, leaving Jacobs behind.

Six days later the appellant was arrested and interviewed by the police. The appellant denied any involvement in the offence. Neither the knife nor the cash register has been found.

The appellant is 32 years old. He is one of five children. When the appellant was a young child, his mother left the family. Her children were cared for by their father. Two of the children were adopted because the appellant's father could not manage five young children by himself. When the appellant was 12 years old, his father died. The sentencing judge accepted that this had a profound impact upon the appellant. After the death of the appellant's father, his mother returned to the family, but relations between the appellant and his mother were strained. The appellant was thrown…

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 Rowlands

Details

AGLC: R v Rowlands [2007] VSCA 14
Case: [2007] VSCA 14
Decision Date: 6 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondent, Rowlands, was charged with armed robbery and pleaded guilty. The Crown sought an extended sentence due to the seriousness of the offence and the respondent's criminal history. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the utility of sentencing statistics and the principles of proportionality and deterrence. Rowlands argued for a sentence at the lower end of the sentencing range, while the Crown advocated for a sentence at the higher end, citing the need for general deterrence and the protection of the community.

The court considered various factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the respondent's criminal history, and the impact on the victim. It found that the sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment with a minimum term of two years’ imprisonment was not manifestly excessive. The court acknowledged the need for general deterrence but also recognised the importance of proportionality and the respondent's potential for rehabilitation. The sentencing statistics were deemed useful in providing context but not determinative of the sentence.

In conclusion, the court determined that the sentence was appropriate given the circumstances of the case. The court found that the sentence achieved the necessary balance between punishment, deterrence, and the respondent's prospects for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of individualised sentencing and the need to consider the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The sentence of four years and six months’ imprisonment with a minimum term of two years’ imprisonment was upheld.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders