Rochelle Louise Key v The Queen - [2010] VSCA 242

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No S APCR 2009 0700

ROCHELLE LOUISE KEY	Appellant
	v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	ASHLEY and WEINBERG JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	16 September 2010
DATE OF JUDGMENT	16 September 2010
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2010] VSCA 242
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Key (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Nicholson, 19 December 2008)

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Armed robbery and attempted armed robbery – Total effective sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 26 months’ imprisonment imposed below – Offences committed whilst appellant on bail for other offences – Sentences imposed in the Magistrates’ Court now fully served – Section 16(3C), Sentencing Act 1991 – Commencement of non-parole period – Section 15(1), Sentencing Act 1991 – Appeal allowed – Appellant re-sentenced to a total effective sentence of 2 years and 10 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 months’ imprisonment.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr D A Dann	Chris McLennan and Associates
For the Crown	Mr D Trapnell, SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

ASHLEY JA:

Rochelle Key, a woman now aged 28, appeals by leave against sentence passed in the County Court on 19 December 2008. On that day, having pleaded guilty to a count of armed robbery and a count of attempted armed robbery, the appellant was sentenced on the first of those counts to 38 months’ imprisonment and on the second to 28 months’ imprisonment. The judge cumulated 4 months of the latter sentence on the former. The total effective sentence was thus 42 months’ imprisonment. The judge fixed a non-parole period of 26 months’ imprisonment. She made certain ancillary orders.

The learned judge also sentenced a co-offender, Damian Greer, on the same day. He was sentenced to 34 months’ imprisonment on the count of armed robbery, and to 24 months’ imprisonment on the count of attempted armed robbery. With partial cumulation, the total effective sentence was 38 months’ imprisonment. The judge fixed a non-parole period of 18 months’ imprisonment, made ancillary orders, and made a declaration with respect to pre-sentence detention.

On 16 June 2009, the appellant instituted an application for extension of time within which to lodge a notice of appeal. The application was granted on 6 October 2009. Buchanan JA granted leave to appeal on 12 February 2010, the Crown having conceded that it was reasonably arguable that the learned sentencing judge had undervalued the appellant’s guilty plea.

There are three grounds of appeal, the third being added by leave this morning:
1.The learned sentencing judge erred in failing to have sufficient regard to the appellant’s plea of guilty.
2. The sentence imposed is manifestly excessive.
3.The learned sentencing judge erred in the application of the parity principle.
The circumstances of the offending were as follows: Adele Rama was driving a vehicle in Flemington at about 6.30pm on 8 April 2008. There was a passenger in his car, Mohammed Cameron. A vehicle driven by…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Rochelle Louise Key v The Queen and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2010] VSCA 242
Decision Date: 16 September 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Rochelle Louise Key, appealed against her sentence for armed robbery and attempted armed robbery, contending that the sentence imposed by the Magistrates’ Court was manifestly inadequate. The appeal was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue for the court was whether the original sentence, which imposed a total effective sentence of 42 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 26 months, was inadequate given the nature and circumstances of the offences. The court also had to consider the proper application of the commencement of the non-parole period under the Sentencing Act 1991.

In addressing the appeal, the court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences imposed for serious offences are proportionate to the gravity of the crimes committed. The court noted that the appellant had committed the offences while on bail for other serious offences, which indicated a pattern of criminal behaviour. However, the court observed that the sentences imposed in the Magistrates’ Court had now been fully served by the appellant. The court considered the appellant's remorse, the impact of the offences on the victims, and the need for general deterrence. The court concluded that while the original sentence was within the statutory limits, it was not sufficiently severe to reflect the seriousness of the crimes, particularly in light of the appellant's prior criminal conduct.

Consequently, the court allowed the appeal and re-sentenced the appellant to a total effective sentence of 2 years and 10 months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 months. The court clarified that the non-parole period should commence from the date of the appeal decision, in accordance with section 16(3C) of the Sentencing Act 1991. This decision ensured that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offences and served the purposes of punishment, including deterrence and denunciation.

Orders