R v Staples - [2005] VSCA 130

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 267of 2003

THE QUEEN
	v.
MEAGAN JANE STAPLES

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES and VINCENT, JJ.A. and OSBORN, A.J.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	11 May 2005
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	11 May 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSCA 130

---

Criminal law - Sentence - Intentionally causing serious injury to offender's daughter aged three - Horrific injuries - Applicant of prior good character - Sentence to be served in protection - Circumstances personal to offender - Sentence of 6½ years, with minimum fixed of 4½ years not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms R. Carlin	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr L.C. Carter	Victoria Legal Aid

CHARLES, J.A.:

On 3 August 2002 the applicant and Joseph Fournair, who were de facto partners at the time, were charged with causing serious injury intentionally or recklessly to Jessica, the three year old daughter of the applicant.

On 15 April 2003 the applicant and Fournair were both committed to stand trial on various charges. The applicant then indicated that she intended to plead guilty to the charges, while Fournair reserved his plea.

On 31 July 2003 the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court at Melbourne to one count of causing serious injury intentionally to Jessica between 1 March and 12 April 2002. During the plea evidence was called on behalf of the applicant from Grace Grieve, a programme coordinator with the Salvation Army, and Matthew John Edwards, the applicant's former brother-in-law. The plea hearing was adjourned to enable a pre-sentence psychiatric report to be obtained. A report was duly obtained from Dr Carol Newlands, a consulting psychiatrist.

On 26 September 2003 the judge sentenced the applicant to six and a half years' imprisonment and fixed a non-parole period of four and a half years.

On 5 December 2003 the trial of Fournair on the charge of causing serious injury intentionally to Jessica commenced before a different County Court Judge. Fournair pleaded not guilty. On 20 December 2003 the jury returned a verdict of guilty. On 10 May 2004 Fournair was sentenced to be imprisoned for eight years and a non-parole period of six years was fixed. Fournair made application for leave to appeal against both conviction and sentence, but his application for leave to appeal against conviction was rejected by this Court on 4 May 2005 and he has since abandoned his application for leave to appeal against sentence.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence on the grounds that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in the circumstances; that the judge erred in the application of the principles of specific and general deterrence; that the judge erred by failing to find that the applicant was of prior good character and in failing to give any weight to the evidence of Matthew Edwards; and by giving no weight to the fact that the applicant would remain in protective custody throughout her incarceration.

I…

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 Staples

Details

AGLC: R v Staples [2005] VSCA 130
Case: [2005] VSCA 130
Decision Date: 11 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Staples, the defendant was convicted of intentionally causing serious injuries to his three-year-old daughter. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence of 6½ years imprisonment, with a minimum fixed term of 4½ years, was manifestly excessive. The appeal was brought forth by the offender, who argued that the sentence was too severe given his prior good character and the personal circumstances of the case.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, the personal circumstances of the offender, and the need for the sentence to serve as a deterrent to others. It was noted that the injuries sustained by the child were severe and had long-lasting effects. The court also acknowledged the offender's previous good character and the personal circumstances surrounding the incident. However, in weighing these factors against the need for an appropriate sentence, the court found that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised that while the offender's personal circumstances and good character were relevant, they did not outweigh the need to appropriately punish the offence and deter similar conduct in the future.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the offender's appeal against sentence. The sentence of 6½ years imprisonment, with a minimum fixed term of 4½ years, was upheld as appropriate and not manifestly excessive. The offender was ordered to serve the sentence in protection, given the nature of the crime and the vulnerability of the victim.

Orders