Reiri v The King - [2024] VSCA 272

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0224

WILSON REIRI	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 November 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 November 2024
DATE OF REASONS:	19 November 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 272
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Reiri (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Smallwood, 17 July 2023)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Aggravated burglary – Recklessly causing injury – Total effective sentence 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment – Three years non-parole – Whether serious risk of imprisonment having adverse effect on applicant’s schizophrenia – Whether sentence is manifestly excessive – No evidence of serious risk – Serious violent offending – Prior violent convictions – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal refused.

Bail Act 1977 s 5AAA(6); Control of Weapons Act 1990 s 5AA; Crimes Act 1958 ss 17, 18, 20, 31, 37, 77, 197, 321M; Family Violence Protection Act 2008 s 37.

Azzopardi v The Queen (2011) 35 VR 43; Boulton v The Queen (2014) 46 VR 308; Clarkson vThe Queen (2011) 32 VR 361; Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) v Patterson [2009] VSCA 222; R v Mills [1998] 4 VR 235; R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; Rohen v The King [2024] VSCA 1; Veen v The Queen [No 2] 1988 164 CLR 465.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr C Wareham
Respondent:		Mr RL Gibson KC
Solicitors
Applicant:	Ann Valos Criminal Law
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
T FORREST JA:

On 12 November 2024, Wilson Reiri (the applicant) sought leave for an extension of time in which to file a notice of application for leave to appeal against sentence. We (impliedly) granted the extension of time but refused leave to appeal against sentence. We indicated that our reasons for this refusal would follow. They are below.
The applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of aggravated burglary[1] and two charges of recklessly causing injury.[2] He was sentenced as follows:
[1]Contrary to s 77 of the Crimes Act 1958.
[2]Contrary to s 17 of the Crimes Act 1958.

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Aggravated burglary 25 years’ imprisonment 4 years’ imprisonment Nil

2 Recklessly causing injury 5 years’ imprisonment 12 months’ imprisonment 2 months

3 Recklessly causing injury 5 years’ imprisonment 12 months’ imprisonment 4 months

Total Effective Sentence: 4 years 6 months’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period: 3 years

Pre-sentence detention declared: 362 days

Section 6AAA Statement: 6 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years

Other relevant orders: Forfeiture and disposal orders

The applicant proposed two grounds of appeal.
Ground 1: The learned sentencing judge erred by failing to take into account the fifth and sixth limbs from R v Verdins (‘Verdins’),[3] namely that:
(a)the applicant’s schizophrenia meant that imprisonment would weigh more heavily on the applicant than it would…

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 Reiri v The King

Details

AGLC: Reiri v The King [2024] VSCA 272
Case: [2024] VSCA 272
Decision Date: 12 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Reiri v The King involved the applicant, Reiri, who sought leave to appeal against the sentence imposed by the County Court for his conviction of aggravated burglary, recklessly causing injury, and related offences. The County Court had sentenced Reiri to a total effective period of four years and six months imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years. The primary legal issues the court had to determine were whether the risk of imprisonment would have an adverse effect on Reiri’s schizophrenia, and if the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court examined whether there was evidence to suggest that the risk of imprisonment would significantly exacerbate Reiri’s schizophrenia. The court found that there was no such evidence presented. Additionally, the court considered the nature of the offences, which involved serious violence and occurred in the context of prior convictions for violent crimes. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive given the seriousness of the offending and the applicant’s criminal history.

Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal and refused leave to appeal the sentence imposed by the County Court. The court concluded that the sentence, while harsh, was not manifestly excessive in light of the gravity of the crimes committed and the applicant’s prior record of violent offending. The court also noted that the applicant's schizophrenia did not present a serious risk that would render the sentence unjust.

Orders