R v Scriven - [2023] VSC 652

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0004

THE KING	Crown
v
WILLIAM JAMES SCRIVEN	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 February 2023 and 17 August 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	9 November 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Scriven
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 652

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Aggravated burglary – Two counts of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence – Theft – Late guilty plea – Accused and co-accused entered premises dressed as police officers in order to steal drugs and/or money from occupants – Hammers used to assault occupants – Victims suffered life threatening injuries – Prognosis regarding victims’ quality of life is poor – Accused on a community corrections order and recently released from custody at time of offending – Domestic abuse during formative years – Illicit drug use – Serious violent offender – Extensive prior convictions – Limited subsequent offending – Guarded prospects of rehabilitation – Total effective sentence of 12 years and 9 months’ imprisonment - Non parole period of 10 years – Bugmy v R [2013] 249 CLR 571 – DPP v Thomas [2019] VSC 608 – R v Ong & Rider [2023] VSC 466 – Sentencing Act 1991, ss 6AAA, 6B(2), 6E, 10(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M Fisher with Mr D Hannan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For William Scriven	Ms F Livingstone Clark	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDING

Around 5am on 25 July 2016, you, William Scriven, and your co-offender, Daniel Thomas, entered a house at 21 Mitchell Road, Lilydale. You entered via the front door which was unlocked. The two of you were dressed as policemen and your intent was to steal drugs and/or money.

There were two people in the house at the time, Scott Sykes, who was asleep in his bedroom, and Neil Cairns, who was sitting on a chair in the kitchen, dozing. One of you shouted at Cairns, ‘This is a police raid. Get on the floor, face down. Where are your drugs?’. Believing you were police, Cairns complied and directed you to a toolbox in the laundry where he kept some drugs. The two of you were not satisfied. As Cairns lay on the floor, he was stomped on and when he tried to get to his feet he was struck to the head with a hammer. The two of you held him against a wall, screaming ‘Where’s your gear, where’s your money?’. When he said he did not have any more, he was struck again and again with hammers to his head, hands, arms and body, causing him to lose consciousness.

Hearing the commotion, Sykes got out of bed and moved towards the kitchen. Thomas said, ‘I’ll kill you’ or ‘You’re fuckin dead’. There was a struggle, and Sykes was struck from behind and fell to the ground, possibly losing consciousness. Whilst on the floor, he…

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 Scriven

Details

AGLC: R v Scriven [2023] VSC 652
Case: [2023] VSC 652
Decision Date: 9 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Scriven involved the appellant, who was convicted of two counts of aggravated burglary, two counts of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, and one count of theft. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appellant, along with a co-accused, had entered a premises dressed as police officers with the intention of stealing drugs and/or money from the occupants. The occupants were assaulted with hammers, resulting in life-threatening injuries. The victims' prognosis regarding their quality of life was described as poor.

The legal issues before the court involved determining an appropriate sentence for the appellant, considering the gravity of the offences, the appellant’s criminal history, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to balance the need for punishment with the potential for rehabilitation, taking into account mitigating factors such as the appellant’s domestic abuse during his formative years and his limited subsequent offending.

The court found that the offences were of significant gravity, involving serious violence and a breach of the fundamental principles of community safety and order. The appellant’s extensive criminal history, coupled with his recent release from custody at the time of the offending, were considered aggravating factors. However, the court also noted the appellant’s limited subsequent offending and his guarded prospects for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court determined a total effective sentence of 12 years and 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 10 years. The court emphasised the need to protect the community while also considering the appellant’s potential for rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a sentence of 12 years and 9 months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 10 years. The court also ordered that the appellant be subject to the conditions of the Sentencing Act 1991, ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences and the need for community protection.

Orders