Legal Research
Cases
Robson v The Queen

Robson v The Queen

Case [2018] VSCA 256 9 October 2018

Sentencing

Compensation Orders

Community Correction Order

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 0204

STUART DEAN ROBSON	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	KYROU and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	11 September 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	9 October 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 256 First Revision: 9 October 2018
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Robson (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Hicks, 25 August 2017)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Two charges of intentionally causing a bushfire – Total effective sentence of 3 years, 9 months’ imprisonment combined with a community correction order for 3 years, 9 months – Fires lit at base of two eucalyptus trees in a park reserve – Fires caused minor damage to trees and were extinguished before spreading – Appellant sentenced in 2001 to total effective sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment for five arson charges – Appellant suffers from mental illness – Offending linked to alcoholism – While on remand, appellant underwent treatment and undertook courses that gave him insight into his offending – Crown concession of ‘significant concerns’ about severity of sentence – Sentence manifestly excessive – Resentenced to total effective sentence of 2 years, 9 months’ imprisonment with community correction order for 2 years, 6 months.

CRIMINAL LAW – Community correction order – Whether electronic monitoring can be ordered under s 48LA of Sentencing Act 1991 in relation to alcohol exclusion condition imposed under s 48J.

CRIMINAL LAW – Compensation order – Whether sentencing court has jurisdiction to make compensation order in favour of Country Fire Authority to recover costs of extinguishing fire – Sentencing Act 1991 pt 4 divs 2 and 2B.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr J D Williams with Mr P J Smallwood	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr B L Sonnet	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

KYROU JA
KAYE JA:

Introduction and summary

The appellant pleaded guilty to the charges set out in the table below and, on 25 August 2017, he was sentenced as set out in that table.[1]
[1]DPP v Robson (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Hicks, 25 August 2017) (‘Sentencing remarks’).

Charge Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Intentionally causing a bushfire [Crimes Act 1958 s 201A] 15 years 2 years, 6 months and a community correction order (‘CCO’) for 3 years, 9 months 9 months

2 Intentionally causing a bushfire 15 years 3 years and a CCO for 3 years, 9 months Base

Summary charges

14 Drive while authorisation suspended [Road Safety Act 1986 s 30(1)] 2 years (subsequent offence) 3 months (aggregate sentence) –

15 Drive while authorisation suspended 2 years (subsequent offence) See charge 14 –

16 Drive while authorisation suspended 2 years (subsequent offence) See charge 14 –

Total Effective Sentence: 3 years, 9 months’ imprisonment combined with a CCO for 3 years, 9 months

Non-Parole Period: None fixed

Pre-Sentence Detention Declaration: 603 days

6AAA Statement: 5 years, 6 months’ imprisonment combined with a CCO for 4 years

Other relevant…

Charge	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Intentionally causing a bushfire [Crimes Act 1958 s 201A]	15 years	2 years, 6 months and a community correction order (‘CCO’) for 3 years, 9 months	9 months
2	Intentionally causing a bushfire	15 years	3 years and a CCO for 3 years, 9 months	Base
Summary charges
14	Drive while authorisation suspended [Road Safety Act 1986 s 30(1)]	2 years (subsequent offence)	3 months (aggregate sentence)	–
15	Drive while authorisation suspended	2 years (subsequent offence)	See charge 14	–
16	Drive while authorisation suspended	2 years (subsequent offence)	See charge 14	–
Total Effective Sentence: 3 years, 9 months’ imprisonment combined with a CCO for 3 years, 9 months
Non-Parole Period: None fixed
Pre-Sentence Detention Declaration: 603 days
6AAA Statement: 5 years, 6 months’ imprisonment combined with a CCO for 4 years
Other relevant…

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 Robson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stuart Dean Robson v The Queen [2018] VSCA 256
Case: [2018] VSCA 256
Decision Date: 9 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in Robson v The Queen was convicted on two counts of intentionally causing a bushfire in a park reserve in Melbourne. The fires were started at the base of two eucalyptus trees, causing minor damage before being extinguished. The appellant was sentenced in 2001 to a total effective sentence of four years’ imprisonment for five arson charges, a sentence that was later deemed manifestly excessive by the court. The appellant, who suffers from mental illness and has a history of alcoholism, had undergone treatment and completed courses during his time on remand, which gave him insight into his offending behaviour. The Crown conceded that there were significant concerns about the severity of the original sentence.

The legal issues before the court included whether the original sentence was manifestly excessive and warranted a resentencing, whether electronic monitoring could be ordered under the Sentencing Act 1991 in relation to an alcohol exclusion condition, and whether the sentencing court had jurisdiction to make a compensation order in favour of the Country Fire Authority to recover the costs of extinguishing the fire. The court found that the original sentence was indeed manifestly excessive and resentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of two years and nine months’ imprisonment combined with a community correction order for two years and six months. The court also ruled that electronic monitoring could be ordered under the Sentencing Act in relation to an alcohol exclusion condition, and that the sentencing court had jurisdiction to make a compensation order in favour of the Country Fire Authority.

In conclusion, the court reduced the appellant's sentence, finding it to be manifestly excessive, and granted him a community correction order. The court also clarified that electronic monitoring could be ordered under the Sentencing Act in relation to an alcohol exclusion condition, and that the sentencing court had jurisdiction to make a compensation order in favour of the Country Fire Authority. This decision provides guidance to sentencing courts in similar cases involving arson offences and the imposition of community correction orders.

Orders