R v Roy - [2001] VSCA 61

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 313 of 2000

THE QUEEN

DARCY ADAM ROY

---

JUDGE:	WINNEKE, P., TADGELL and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	2 May 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 May 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 61

---

Criminal law - Sentencing - Armed robbery using blood-filled syringe as a weapon - No automatic or mechanical addition on that account to a sentence otherwise to be awarded.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G.G.Hicks, S.C.	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr N. Papas and Ms F. Stewart	Victoria Legal Aid

WINNEKE, P.:

I invite Tadgell, J.A. to give the first judgment in this application.

TADGELL, J.A.:

The applicant, Darcy Adam Roy, complains of sentences that were imposed upon him following his plea of guilty in the County Court on 11 October last year. There were two offences to which he pleaded, both offences of armed robbery - one on 13 April last year and one on the following day.

It is sufficient to adapt the statement of the circumstances which the learned sentencing judge made. Both offences were committed at the premises of separate real estate agents at Endeavour Hills. On each occasion the applicant was armed with a syringe filled with his own blood. He travelled to and away from the scene in a car driven by an unknown woman. At the time he was, as the judge found, probably "hung over" from heroin, for he was a heroin addict and he was adversely affected by Diazapam. Be that as it may, as the judge said, the applicant knew very well what he was doing. In using a weapon of the kind he did, the applicant selected what are called "soft targets". The two persons the subjects of the robberies were women and each of them suffered severely, emotionally and otherwise, as a result of what was done. Indeed, the applicant recognised that they would have done so, for he wrote a circular letter to each apologising for what he had done and admitting that he had had no right to do it.

Upon the plea, counsel made on behalf of the applicant a number of points: that he had no prior convictions, despite having had a heroin habit for some two years before the offences were committed; that he was at the time 27 years old and a heroin addict; that he had made an early plea of guilty following co-operation with the police, making frank admissions; and, finally, that he had made a display of

genuine remorse for his actions. The judge imposed a sentence of four years' imprisonment for each offence and directed that one year on the second offence be served cumulatively upon the four years imposed for the first offence. The total effective sentence was therefore one of five years' imprisonment. A minimum was fixed of three years. Compensation orders amounting to $3,700 were made reflecting the amount of money which…

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 Roy

Details

AGLC: R v Roy [2001] VSCA 61
Case: [2001] VSCA 61
Decision Date: 2 May 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Roy was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Roy, was convicted of armed robbery, during which he used a blood-filled syringe as a weapon. The case focused on the appropriate sentencing for this offence, particularly in relation to the use of the syringe. The central issue before the court was whether the use of the syringe warranted any additional sentence beyond what would otherwise be appropriate for the crime of armed robbery.

The legal issue that the court had to address was whether the use of a blood-filled syringe in the commission of an armed robbery mandated a mechanical or automatic increase in the sentence. The prosecution argued that the use of a syringe, particularly one filled with blood, should lead to a harsher sentence, whereas the defence contended that the sentencing should be based on the overall circumstances of the crime and the principles of proportionality and justice. The court considered whether the use of the syringe was so egregious that it required an automatic increase in the sentence, or if the sentence should be determined on a case-by-case basis.

In its judgment, the court held that there was no automatic or mechanical addition to the sentence simply because a blood-filled syringe was used as a weapon. The court emphasised that sentencing in such cases should be based on the totality of the circumstances, including the nature of the crime and the culpability of the offender. The use of the syringe was considered in the context of the overall offending, but it did not result in a mandatory increase in the sentence. The court reiterated the principle that each case must be assessed individually to ensure that the sentence is just and proportionate to the crime committed. Consequently, the sentence awarded to Roy was based on the totality of the circumstances and not on an automatic addition for the use of the syringe.

The court's decision underscores the importance of a balanced and nuanced approach to sentencing, where the specific facts of each case are given due consideration. The final orders of the court were not to mechanically increase the sentence for the use of the blood-filled syringe, but rather to determine the appropriate sentence based on the overall circumstances of the armed robbery committed by Roy.

Orders