Ronald William Booker v The Queen - [2022] VSCA 150

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2021 0186

RONALD WILLIAM BOOKER	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	PRIEST and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	29 July 2022
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 July 2022
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSCA 150
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2021] VCC 1957 (Judge McInerney)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Appeal – Intentionally causing serious injury and being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm – Sentenced to 10 years for intentionally causing serious injury – TES of 10 years and 6 months, with NPP of 8 years – Manifest excess – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Parity – Co-offender sentenced to 5 years for intentionally causing serious injury – Co-offender’s circumstances considerably different from applicant’s circumstance – Reduction in co-offender’s sentence due to cooperation and lesser criminal history – Parity complaint not reasonably arguable – Appeal dismissed.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Ms J Swiney
Respondent:		Mr C B Boyce QC
Solicitors
Applicant:	Stary Norton Halphen
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
BEACH JA:

Shortly after midnight on 8 February 2020, the applicant and a co-accused (HU) drove to an address in Sunbury at which their intended victim (‘the victim’) lived. At about 1:10 am, the victim and his wife arrived home from a wedding. They parked in the driveway and walked to the front door. HU drove the vehicle in which she and the applicant were travelling up to the victim’s address. The applicant got out of the front passenger seat. He was wearing a Freddy Krueger-style mask over his face and head, and carrying a sawn-off shotgun. HU remained in the driver’s seat with her face covered.
The applicant approached the victim and his wife. The victim pushed his wife behind him, yelled at the applicant to get off their property, and tried to kick him away. The applicant aimed and fired a shot into the victim’s lower right leg at close range causing muscle and tissue from his leg to spray around the area. The victim fell to the ground and immediately began to bleed heavily.
Subsequently, the applicant and HU each pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of intentionally causing serious injury[1] (charge 1) and one charge of being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm[2] (charge 2 on the indictment in relation to the applicant, and charge 3 in relation to HU). The maximum penalty for intentionally causing serious injury is 20 years’ imprisonment; and the maximum penalty for a prohibited person in possession of a firearm is ten years.
[1]Contrary to s 16 of the Crimes Act 1958.
[2]Contrary to s 5 of the Firearms Act 1996.
On 17 November 2021, the judge sentenced the applicant to a term of imprisonment of ten years on charge 1, and one year on charge 2. The judge ordered that six months of the sentence on charge 2 be served cumulatively upon the sentence on charge 1,…

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 Ronald William Booker v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Ronald William Booker v The Queen [2022] VSCA 150
Case: [2022] VSCA 150
Decision Date: 29 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Ronald William Booker appealed against his sentence for intentionally causing serious injury while being a prohibited person in possession of a firearm. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was whether the sentence of 10 years was manifestly excessive. Additionally, the court had to consider the argument of parity, comparing Booker’s sentence with that of his co-offender, who was sentenced to 5 years for the same offence.

The court examined the totality of the circumstances surrounding the offence and the sentences imposed. It acknowledged that Booker’s co-offender received a lesser sentence due to cooperation and a lesser criminal history. The court found that the disparity in sentences was justified given the different circumstances of each offender. The High Court held that the parity argument was not reasonably arguable because the co-offender’s sentence was reduced for legitimate reasons unrelated to Booker’s case. The totality of evidence suggested that Booker’s sentence was appropriate and not manifestly excessive.

In conclusion, the appeal was dismissed by the court. The High Court found that the sentence of 10 years was not manifestly excessive, and the parity argument did not hold sufficient merit to warrant a reduction in Booker’s sentence. The appeal was therefore unsuccessful, and the original sentence was upheld.

Orders