Legal Research
Cases
Raveche v The Queen

Raveche v The Queen

Case [2015] VSCA 99 15 May 2015

Sentencing

Recklessly Causing Serious Injury

Affray

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0160

MIGUEL RAVECHE	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH and KYROU JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	22 April 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	15 May 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 99
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Raveche (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Taft, 27 June 2014)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Guilty plea to offences of recklessly causing serious injury and affray— Young offender — Stomped on victim’s head while he was on the ground unable to defend himself — Victim suffered brain damage — Prior offence for intentionally causing serious injury — Aggregate sentence of 3 years’ and 8 months’ imprisonment — Whether manifestly excessive — Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P F Tehan QC with Mr T Alexander	Mirko Bagaric Lawyers
For the Respondent	Ms S Borg	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA

KYROU JA:

Introduction and summary

On 19 June 2014 the appellant (now aged 25) pleaded guilty to one charge of affray and one charge of recklessly causing serious injury. Following a plea on 19 and 24 June 2014, he was sentenced on 27 June 2014 as follows:

Charge	Offence	Maximum	Sentence
1	Affray [common law]	5 years [Crimes Act s 320]	3 years, 8 months (Aggregate)
2	Recklessly causing serious injury [Crimes Act1958 s 17]	15 years
Total Effective Sentence:		3 years, 8 months
Non-Parole Period:		1 year, 9 months
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		3 days
6AAA Statement:		5 years; NPP: 3 years, 6 months

On 30 October 2014, Priest JA granted the appellant leave to appeal against sentence on the following ground:

2. The sentence in all the circumstances is manifestly excessive.

Priest JA refused the appellant leave to appeal on a separate ground, namely, that the sentencing judge erred by failing to correctly apply the principles regarding the relevance of prior convictions to the exercise of the sentencing discretion. The appellant has not elected to renew that ground of appeal.

For reasons that follow, the appeal will be dismissed.

Circumstances of the offending

In the early morning of 3 March 2013, when he was 23 years old, the appellant left a restaurant in the Melbourne CBD with friends, including Paul Sergides and Frank Ropata, having attended a nightclub earlier that night. The appellant and his friends each consumed approximately 30 standard drinks. Having decided to go home, the appellant entered a vehicle driven by his partner, Kristina Sergides, along with Ms Sergides’s brother, Paul Sergides.

While the appellant and Mr Sergides were in the car, Mr Ropata walked up behind another man, Louis Ting, and punched him at least three times to the back of the head causing him to fall to the ground. Having noticed the incident, the appellant and Mr Sergides rushed from the car to help Mr Ropata.

Mark Ambrose, a friend of Mr Ting, went to his assistance and was knocked down.…

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 Raveche v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Raveche v The Queen [2015] VSCA 99
Case: [2015] VSCA 99
Decision Date: 15 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Raveche v The Queen involved the appellant, who pleaded guilty to charges of recklessly causing serious injury and affray. The incidents occurred when the appellant, along with others, assaulted a victim, stomping on his head while he lay incapacitated on the ground. The victim suffered significant brain damage as a consequence of the attack. The appellant had a prior criminal record, which included a conviction for intentionally causing serious injury. Following the plea, the appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 3 years and 8 months' imprisonment. The appellant challenged the severity of the sentence, arguing it was manifestly excessive, and appealed to a higher court. The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was appropriate given the nature of the crimes and the appellant's background.

The primary legal issues before the court included whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the appellant's age at the time of the offence, his plea of guilty, and the degree of culpability involved in the assault. The court also considered the appellant's prior criminal record and the impact of the injuries inflicted on the victim. In assessing the sentence, the court had to balance the principles of deterrence and rehabilitation against the need for punishment and the protection of society.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It recognised the appellant's early guilty plea and his relatively young age at the time of the offence. However, it also highlighted the severity of the attack and the lasting consequences for the victim. The court determined that the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of the crimes and provided sufficient deterrence. The appeal was therefore dismissed, upholding the original sentence. The court did not find any error in the assessment of the sentence, affirming that it was within the appropriate range for the offences committed.

Orders