R v Squires - [2001] VSCA 199

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
COURT OF APPEAL
No. 10 of 2001

THE QUEEN

v.

TROY THOMAS SQUIRES

---

JUDGES:

CHARLES, BUCHANAN and CHERNOV, JJ.A.

WHERE HELD:

MELBOURNE

DATE OF HEARING:

1 November 2001

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

1 November 2001

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2001] VSCA 199

---
Criminal law - Sentencing - Armed robbery, burglary and theft - Offences committed whilst on bail and serving community-based order - Youthful offender - Youth training centre - First incarceration - Sentence of 5 years with non-parole period of 3 years manifestly excessive - R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235.
---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors

For the Crown Ms S. Pullen K. Robertson, Solicitor for Office of Public Prosecutions

For the Applicant Mr G.J. Thomas Victoria Legal Aid
CHARLES, J.A.:
1 The appellant, who is now 20 years old, pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne on 15 January 2001 to two presentments, the first alleging one count each of armed robbery, burglary and theft, and the second alleging one count of theft and two counts of attempted armed robbery.

2 A plea was heard during which a report from a forensic psychologist, Mr Ian Joblin, was received and evidence was given on behalf of the appellant by his mother, Mrs Bernadette Squires. On 16 January 2001 the judge sentenced the appellant on the first presentment to three years' imprisonment for armed robbery and 12 months and six months' imprisonment for burglary and theft respectively; on the second presentment to three years’ and four years' imprisonment for the two attempted armed robberies and six months' imprisonment for theft. Orders for cumulation were made as to six months of the sentence for armed robbery on the first presentment and a further six months for the first attempted armed robbery on the second presentment upon the base sentence of four years. The total effectively sentence was therefore five years' imprisonment and a non-parole period of three years was fixed.

3 The appellant now appeals pursuant to leave granted under s.582 of the Crimes Act 1958, the sole ground of appeal being that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

4 The facts giving rise to these offences were as follows. On 2 July 2000 at approximately 1.30 p.m. the appellant, together with a co-accused Jamie Lee and another, went to a pharmacy in Frankston and spoke with a receptionist. At 2.30 p.m. the appellant returned to the pharmacy and again spoke briefly to the receptionist. At 2.45 p.m. the appellant returned, with Jamie Lee staying outside the pharmacy. The appellant walked straight into the pharmacy and went behind the counter in the service area. The pharmacist immediately stood up and asked the appellant what he was doing. The appellant moved directly to shelves in the storage area and took hold of a batch of Temazepam tablets, being two packets of 12 bottles of tablets. The pharmacist then attempted to stop the appellant escaping and chased him around the counter. The pharmacist pushed the appellant…

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 Squires

Details

AGLC: R v Squires [2001] VSCA 199
Case: [2001] VSCA 199
Decision Date: 1 November 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the sentencing of an offender, Squires, who had committed armed robbery, burglary, and theft while on bail and serving a community-based order. Squires was a young offender with no prior convictions and had been placed in a youth training centre prior to sentencing. The court was required to consider these mitigating factors alongside the severity of the offences committed.

The central legal issue for the court was whether the sentence imposed on Squires was manifestly excessive. The court referenced R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235, which provides guidance on the principles of sentencing and the need for a sentence to be proportionate to the crime committed. The court needed to weigh Squires' youth and lack of prior convictions against the gravity of the new offences and the need for general deterrence.

The court determined that the sentence of 5 years with a non-parole period of 3 years was indeed manifestly excessive. It considered Squires' age, his background, and the fact that this was his first incarceration. The court found that the sentence did not appropriately balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the mitigating factors of Squires' youth and lack of prior convictions. Consequently, the sentence was quashed and remitted for reconsideration. The court did not provide specific orders for the new sentence but indicated that the new sentence should reflect the appropriate balance of the aforementioned factors.

Orders