R v Stevenson - [2000] VSCA 161

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 79 of 2000

THE QUEEN

BENJAMIN ADAM STEVENSON

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., ORMISTON and CHARLES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	31 August 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 September 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 161

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Intentionally causing serious injury – Causing affray at Melbourne Cup – Plea of guilty – Parity principle – Sentence not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. G.G. Hicks and Ms. R.E. Carlin	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. O.P. Holdenson Q.C.	David Tonkin & Associates

WINNEKE, P.:

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

CHARLES, J.A.:

The applicant, who was born on 30 July 1974, and his elder brother, Jason Peter Stevenson ("Jason") both pleaded guilty in the County Court of Melbourne on 23 November 1999 to a presentment which alleged one charge of affray contrary to the common law (count 1) and one charge of causing serious injury intentionally contrary to s.16 of the Crimes Act 1958 (count 2). The maximum penalty for making an affray was then five years' and for causing serious injury intentionally, 20 years' imprisonment.

A plea was heard on 14 March 2000, when Jason admitted some seven prior convictions, including two convictions for unlawful assault, and the applicant admitted two prior convictions, one of which was for an assault, and that he had also been found guilty on 30 September 1992 on an earlier charge of assault. During the plea counsel for the applicant relied on the evidence of one Bernard George Harrison, a former police officer, and three other witnesses. A substantial number of character references were tendered.

The plea was adjourned to 28 March 2000 to enable medical and psychiatric reports in relation to the victim to be provided to the court and the brothers were both remanded in custody.

On 3 April 2000 the learned judge sentenced both of the prisoners to 12 months' imprisonment on count 1 and three years' imprisonment on count 2. His Honour ordered that the sentences were to be served concurrently, and that each prisoner serve 12 months' imprisonment, with the balance of the three-year term being suspended for three years.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence on the grounds that the sentence is manifestly excessive, secondly, that the judge gave insufficient weight to the plea of guilty and, thirdly, that the judge gave insufficient weight to the principle of parity.

The facts giving rise to these offences were set out by the judge in his reasons for sentence. An agreed statement of facts was in evidence before the court and, save in one respect which I will mention later, no challenge has been made to his Honour's recitation of the facts. I should mention that the prosecutor at one stage incorrectly informed the judge that the penalty for affray was at large, whereas the maximum…

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 Stevenson

Details

AGLC: R v Stevenson [2000] VSCA 161
Case: [2000] VSCA 161
Decision Date: 1 September 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Stevenson, the appellant was convicted for his role in causing serious injury to another individual during the Melbourne Cup. The incident occurred in a highly public and chaotic environment, adding a layer of complexity to the sentencing process. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal in Melbourne. The appellant had pleaded guilty to charges of intentionally causing serious injury and engaging in an affray, which had disrupted a significant public event.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive under the circumstances. This involved a detailed examination of the principles of sentencing for serious offences, particularly the requirement to ensure that sentences are proportionate to the crime and reflect the need for punishment and deterrence. The court had to consider the appellant's plea of guilty, the impact of the crime on the victim, and the broader societal implications of the affray during a major public event.

The court found that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors in arriving at the sentence. The sentencing judge had weighed the severity of the injuries caused, the appellant's lack of remorse, and the disruptive nature of the affray at a public event. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it was consistent with sentences imposed for similar offences. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial judge's decision and upholding the sentence imposed.

Orders