R v Van Staveren - [2001] VSCA 41

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL Not Restricted

No. 328 of 2000

THE QUEEN

SARAH MARGARET VAN STAVEREN

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BROOKING and CHARLES, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	BALLARAT
DATE OF HEARING:	22 March 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 March 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 41

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Armed robbery – Blood filled syringe – Youthful offender without prior convictions – Prospects of rehabilitation – Sentence of 2½ years’ imprisonment – Failing to consider other sentencing options – Sentencing error – Youth Training Centre detention substituted.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. P.A. Coghlan, Q.C.	P.C. Wood, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Applicant	Mr. N. Papas	Victoria Legal Aid

WINNEKE, P.:

I will invite Charles, J.A. to deliver the first judgment on this application.

CHARLES, J.A.:

The applicant, Sarah Margaret Van Staveren, who was born on 25 December 1981 and who is now aged 19, and one Joy Lyn Varley each pleaded guilty on 18 October 2000 in the County Court at Melbourne to a presentment alleging one count of armed robbery and a second count of attempted armed robbery. Both had pleaded guilty previously at the committal in the Magistrates' Court at Melbourne on 21 August 2000. The applicant had no previous convictions. After hearing a plea, during which counsel for the applicant tendered various documents, the judge sentenced the applicant on count 1 to be imprisoned for two years and six months and on count 2 for two years, making a total effective sentence of two years and six months, and fixed a non-parole period of 12 months.

The judge sentenced Varley on count 1 to be imprisoned for two years and three months and on count 2 for one year and nine months, making a total effective sentence of two years and three months, and fixed a non-parole period of nine months.

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal against sentence on the grounds that the judge gave undue weight to general deterrence and to the prevention of like offences in the local community without there being any evidence of such, and gave insufficient weight to the applicant's early plea of guilty, remorse, personal antecedents, rehabilitation, and other available sentencing options. The sentence is also claimed to be manifestly excessive.

The facts giving rise to these offences were as follows. On 26 May 2000, at around midday, Ms Mom Kong was walking along Victoria Street, Springvale, towards her home, when the applicant and Varley were travelling down Victoria Street in a white Holden, which Varley was driving. They stopped near Ms Kong. The applicant stepped out of the car and shouted at Ms Kong, asking her the time. She then ran up behind Ms Kong, grabbed her by the back of the neck, and pushed her up against a fence. The applicant then grabbed the front of Ms Kong's neck, waved a blood-filled syringe in the air, and told Ms Kong to hand over her money or…

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 Van Staveren

Details

AGLC: R v Van Staveren [2001] VSCA 41
Case: [2001] VSCA 41
Decision Date: 22 March 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case before the court, the respondent, Van Staveren, was convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to a term of 2½ years’ imprisonment. Van Staveren, a first-time offender, committed the crime while in possession of a blood-filled syringe. The appeal against his sentence was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate and whether the trial judge failed to adequately consider alternative sentencing options, particularly Youth Training Centre detention.

The court examined the trial judge’s approach to sentencing, highlighting that there was no explicit consideration of the alternative sentencing options available for a youthful offender without prior convictions. The court found that the sentence of 2½ years was manifestly inadequate, as it did not adequately address the prospects of rehabilitation and the unique circumstances of the offender. The failure to consider other sentencing options, such as Youth Training Centre detention, constituted a significant error in the sentencing process. Consequently, the court determined that the sentence should be set aside and replaced with an appropriate alternative.

Following the court’s reasoning, the appeal was allowed, and the sentence was quashed. In its place, the court ordered that Van Staveren be detained at a Youth Training Centre for a period of 12 months, starting from the date of his original sentence. This decision aimed to provide a more suitable rehabilitation opportunity for the youthful offender, considering the absence of prior convictions and the potential for reformative measures.

Orders