R v Siggins - [2002] VSCA 97

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 292 of 2001

THE QUEEN
	v.
GERARD VICTOR SIGGINS

---

JUDGES:	BATT and EAMES, JJ.A. and O'BRYAN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 June 2002
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 June 2002
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSCA 97

---

Criminal law - sentence - aggravated burglary, theft, intentionally damage property - Crimes Act 1958, ss.77(1), 74, 197(1) - "home invasion" - applicant aged 27 at time of offences - 141 prior convictions, none for violence - applicant duped by co-offender - Crown concedes unusual features of case militating in favour of leniency - plea of guilty - informer's discount - good rehabilitation prospects - effective sentence of 4 years 8 months with non-parole period of 2 years 6 months reduced to 3 years 8 months with non-parole period of 1 year 8 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T. Gyorffy	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr M. Kowalski (appearing pro bono)

BATT, J.A.:

I will ask Eames, J.A. to deliver the first judgment.

EAMES, J.A.:

On 24 October 2001 the applicant appeared at the County Court, Morwell and pleaded guilty to one count of intentionally damaging property contrary to s.197(1) of the Crimes Act 1958, one count of theft contrary to s.74 of the Act and one count of aggravated burglary contrary to s.77(1) of the Act. The maximum penalty on the first two counts is ten years' imprisonment and for the last count is 25 years' imprisonment.

The applicant who is aged 29 years, and was 27 at the time of the offences, admitted 141 prior convictions from 15 appearances between 1990 and 2000, including six convictions for burglary and 89 convictions for theft.

On 28 November 2001 a Judge of the County Court sentenced the applicant to 12 months' imprisonment on count 1, to 18 months' imprisonment on count 2 and to four years' imprisonment on count 3. The learned sentencing judge ordered that 10 months of the sentence on count 1 be served concurrently with the sentence on count 3, and that 12 months of the sentence on count 2 be served concurrently with the sentence on count 3[1]. The total effective sentence was four years and eight months with a minimum non-parole period of two years and six months. His Honour also ordered that the applicant make restitution to victims, for damaged property, in the total sum of $20,304.
[1]Having regard to the terms of s.16(1) it would have been more appropriate that the learned sentencing judge direct that periods of the sentences on counts 1 and 2 be served cumulatively with the sentence on count 3, rather than to express the sentence in terms of portions of the sentence to be served concurrently, but the intention of his Honour as to the effective sentence is nonetheless clear.

The applicant seeks leave to appeal on two grounds (as amended):

(1)That when regard is had to the penalty ultimately imposed, the…

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 Siggins

Details

AGLC: R v Siggins [2002] VSCA 97
Case: [2002] VSCA 97
Decision Date: 20 June 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Regina v. Siggins, the defendant was convicted for his role in an aggravated burglary, theft, and the intentional damage of property, pursuant to sections 77(1), 74, and 197(1) of the Crimes Act 1958. The case was heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal. The defendant, aged 27 at the time of the offences, had a significant criminal history, with 141 prior convictions, none of which were for violent crimes. He was led into the commission of these offences by a co-offender, which the Crown acknowledged as an unusual feature of the case that should be considered for leniency. The defendant entered a plea of guilty, which resulted in an informer's discount, and he demonstrated good rehabilitation prospects.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the unusual circumstances and the factors in mitigation. The court needed to balance the seriousness of the offences with the defendant's age, criminal history, the influence of his co-offender, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The Crown conceded that these factors should be considered favourably towards a lesser sentence. The court was also required to ensure that the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the crimes committed.

The Court of Appeal, after considering the arguments and the mitigating factors presented, reduced the originally imposed sentence. The effective sentence of 4 years and 8 months, with a non-parole period of 2 years and 6 months, was amended to 3 years and 8 months, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 8 months. This reduction was deemed appropriate given the unique circumstances of the case and the defendant's potential for rehabilitation. The Court of Appeal found the original sentence to be too severe in light of the mitigating factors and the plea of guilty.

Orders