Legal Research
Cases
R v Teichelman

R v Teichelman

Case [2000] VSCA 224 23 November 2000

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 220 of 2000

THE QUEEN

TRAVIS JOHN TEICHELMAN

---

JUDGES:	PHILLIPS, C.J., BATT and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	23 November 2000
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 November 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSCA 224

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Causing serious injury intentionally and two lesser offences – Not guilty pleas – Offender 21 years when sentenced, without prior convictions and with good rehabilitation, prospective and achieved – 21 months’ imprisonment of which 12 months suspended not manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. P.A. Coghlan, Q.C.	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. M.R. Simon	McLennans

PHILLIPS, C.J.:

I will invite my brother Batt to give the first judgment.

BATT, J.A.:

After a five-day trial the applicant, Travis John Teichelman, was found guilty by a jury in the County Court at Melbourne on 1 September 2000 of making an affray (count 1), intentionally causing serious injury (count 2) and intentionally causing injury (count 4). The maximum penalties applicable to those offences were imprisonment for 5 years, 20 years and 10 years respectively. The judge heard a plea in mitigation of penalty on 4 September 2000, during which the applicant's mother, the applicant's employer and a Detective Sergeant of Police who was a long-standing friend of the family gave evidence. On 7 September his Honour sentenced the applicant to the following terms of imprisonment, namely, four months for affray, 16 months for intentionally causing serious injury and six months for intentionally causing injury. He directed that two months of the sentence for affray and three months of the sentence for intentionally causing injury be served concurrently with all other sentences, making a total effective sentence of 21 months' imprisonment. (The directions in terms of concurrency are not, I think, to be explained by s.6E of the Sentencing Act 1991 because the first and third offences were not "relevant offences".) His Honour ordered that 12 months of that sentence be suspended for a period of three years from the date of sentence, resulting in an effective sentence of immediate imprisonment of nine months.

The applicant initially sought leave to appeal against conviction as well as against sentence, but abandoned the former application. The grounds set out in the notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence are, first, that the

sentences were manifestly excessive and, secondly, that the judge failed to take into account the assessment and pre-sentence report of the Office of Corrections.

Before those grounds can be considered, it is necessary to set out in summary form the facts of the offences and the facts personal to the applicant. On the evening of 27 February 1999 a party was held at the home of the applicant's parents to celebrate the 50th birthday of his father. His parents lived in a semi-rural area in Wattle Glen, fronting Park Avenue, an unmade road flanked by trees. The celebration also…

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 Teichelman

Details

AGLC: R v Teichelman [2000] VSCA 224
Case: [2000] VSCA 224
Decision Date: 23 November 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Teichelman involved the defendant, Teichelman, who was charged with causing serious injury intentionally and two lesser offences. The defendant pleaded not guilty to the charges. The case was heard in a court of criminal jurisdiction. The key issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for Teichelman, considering his age at the time of sentencing, lack of prior convictions, and potential for rehabilitation.

The court had to determine whether the sentence of 21 months' imprisonment, of which 12 months were to be suspended, was manifestly excessive. The defendant was 21 years old at the time of sentencing and had no prior criminal record. Additionally, the court took into account the defendant's prospects for rehabilitation, both prospective and achieved. The court examined these factors in light of the seriousness of the offences and the need to balance the interests of justice, including deterrence and denunciation.

After considering the circumstances, the court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The age of the defendant, absence of prior convictions, and potential for rehabilitation were significant factors in the court's reasoning. The seriousness of the offences and the need for deterrence and denunciation were also considered. The court found that the sentence of 21 months' imprisonment, with 12 months suspended, appropriately balanced these considerations. The court thus upheld the sentence as imposed by the lower court.

The final orders of the court were to uphold the sentence of 21 months' imprisonment, with 12 months suspended, as not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence appropriately balanced the factors of the defendant's age, lack of prior convictions, potential for rehabilitation, and the seriousness of the offences. The court did not order any further action or modification of the sentence.

Orders