Legal Research
Cases
Robbins v The Queen

Robbins v The Queen

Case [2012] VSCA 34 2 March 2012

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2011 0130

IAN HARVEY ROBBINS	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	Neave, Mandie and Harper JJA
WHERE HELD	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING	21 February 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT	2 March 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2012] VSCA 34
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	Director of Public Prosecutions v Ian Harvey Robbins (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Mullaly, 27 May 2011)

---

CRIMINAL − Sentence − Intentionally causing serious injury − Appellant hit wife on head three times with claw hammer − Guilty plea − Whether sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of eight years and six months manifestly excessive − No prior convictions − Profound remorse − Very good prospects of rehabilitation − Appeal allowed in part − Non-parole period reduced to seven years’ imprisonment.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the appellant	Mr L C Carter	Robert Stary Lawyers
For the respondent	Ms C Quin	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

NEAVE JA:

This is an appeal against a sentence of 11 years’ imprisonment, with a non‑parole period of eight years and six months, which was imposed on the appellant following his plea of guilty to one count of intentionally causing serious injury.

The victim of the offence was the appellant’s wife, Monica Robbins. Prior to the offence, the couple lived on a farm with their three daughters, aged eight, six and three and with Ms Robbins’ daughter from a previous marriage, Michaela, who was 14 years old.

The offence took place on the evening of 5 April 2010. Ms Robbins was talking to her mother on the telephone and made a critical remark about the appellant, who was sitting nearby.

The appellant started breathing heavily and picked up a metal claw hammer, which he had previously been using to repair a fence on the farm. Using both hands, he struck Ms Robbins three times on the back of her head with the hammer. The violence involved in the offence was described by the sentencing judge as follows:

you hit her on the head with enormous force. You repeated the blow again with such force that the hammer became embedded in her skull and it took effort for you to get it back out. But you did get it back out and you struck her on the head for a third time.[1]

[1]Director of Public Prosecutions v Ian Harvey Robbins (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Mullaly, 27 May 2011 (‘Reasons’) [5].

The appellant apologised to Michaela, who had witnessed the assault on her mother, and immediately left the property, leaving the three younger children behind and Michaela to call an ambulance.

During the attack on Ms Robbins, the appellant’s three young daughters were in their bedrooms. Delta Robbins, aged five, told police that she looked out her bedroom several times. She said she ‘saw the hammer and I heard “Sorry, sorry, look after the kids”, and then he just drove off’. She later saw her mother lying…

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 Robbins v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Robbins v The Queen [2012] VSCA 34
Case: [2012] VSCA 34
Decision Date: 2 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robbins appealed against his conviction and sentence for intentionally causing serious injury to his wife. The incident involved the appellant striking his wife on the head three times with a claw hammer. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the court was whether the sentence of eleven years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years and six months, was manifestly excessive, given the absence of prior convictions, the appellant's profound remorse, and his very good prospects of rehabilitation.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for serious violent crimes and the need for a sentence to reflect both the gravity of the offence and the individual circumstances of the offender. The appellant's actions were of extreme violence, and the resulting injuries to his wife were severe. However, the court noted the appellant's guilty plea, his remorse, and the absence of prior criminal history. The court also acknowledged the significant potential for rehabilitation. The High Court held that while the sentence was not manifestly excessive, the non-parole period was too long given the circumstances. The court reduced the non-parole period to seven years, thereby partially allowing the appeal.

The court's decision resulted in a reduction of the non-parole period to seven years, while maintaining the overall sentence of eleven years' imprisonment. The appeal was allowed in part, and the original sentence was amended accordingly. The court's ruling underscores the importance of considering both the severity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the offender when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders