Roxann Lucy Thomas v The Queen - [2017] VSCA 333

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2017 207

ROXANN LUCY THOMAS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	BEACH JA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	16 November 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 333
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP vThomas (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Wilmoth, 7 September 2017)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application for leave to appeal against sentence – Armed robbery – Intentionally causing injury – Total effective sentence of 4 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 22 months – Manifest excess – Whether sentence imposed manifestly excessive – Not reasonably arguable that sentence manifestly excessive – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	No appearance	Chris McLennan & Co
For the Crown	No appearance	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BEACH JA:

On 28 August 2017, the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to one charge of armed robbery and one charge of causing injury intentionally. Following a plea hearing, on 7 September 2017, the applicant was sentenced as follows:

Charge on Indictment
Offence Maximum Sentence
Cumulation

1.
Armed Robbery

[s 75A of the Crimes Act1958]
25 years
3 years and 9 months
Base

2.
Causing injury intentionally
[s 18 of the Crimes Act1958]
10 years 6 months 3 months

Total effective sentence: 4 years’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period: 22 months’ imprisonment

Presentence Detention: 87 days

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against her sentence. The sole ground upon which the applicant seeks leave to appeal is that the sentence imposed is ‘manifestly excessive in all the circumstances’. In particularising her proposed ground of appeal, the applicant contends that the sentencing judge gave insufficient weight to the applicant’s plea of guilty, prospects for rehabilitation, remorse and the fact that medical conditions suffered by the applicant would make imprisonment more burdensome for her.

Circumstances of the offending

On 28 February 2017, the applicant was travelling as a passenger on a bus from Chadstone shopping centre to the Mentone railway station. The applicant’s victim was a fellow passenger, Mr Yuwei Hu. Mr Hu is a Chinese citizen who was studying in Australia at the time of the applicant’s offending.

In the early afternoon of 28 February 2017, Mr Hu boarded the bus and took an aisle seat towards the rear of the bus. The applicant was seated in the opposite seat and playing loud music. Approximately 10 minutes into the journey, the applicant spoke to Mr Hu and asked him for coins. Mr Hu looked in his backpack and told the applicant that he did not have any coins. The applicant continued to ask Mr Hu for money and pleaded with him to give her $10.00.

Mr Hu felt that the applicant was becoming very persistent and stubborn and he decided to get off the bus, several stops before his intended stop. Mr Hu stood up, but the applicant stood up and blocked Mr Hu’s…

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 Roxann Lucy Thomas v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Roxann Lucy Thomas v The Queen [2017] VSCA 333
Case: [2017] VSCA 333
Decision Date: 16 November 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Roxann Lucy Thomas, sought leave to appeal against her sentence for armed robbery, which included causing injury. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. Thomas was convicted of armed robbery and intentionally causing injury, and was sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of four years, with a non-parole period of 22 months. The legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, warranting leave to appeal.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for armed robbery, considering the severity of the crime, the applicant's criminal history, and the need for deterrence and retribution. It was noted that the applicant had a history of criminal behaviour, including violence, and the armed robbery was committed with a firearm. The court held that the sentence was within the range of appropriate sentences for such offences and was not manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentence took into account the applicant's criminal history and the need to deter and retribute for the offence. The court concluded that it was not reasonably arguable that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal was refused. The court determined that the sentence imposed was not manifestly excessive and was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offences committed. The court found that the sentence adequately reflected the seriousness of the offence and the need for deterrence and retribution. The decision of the court was that the applicant was not entitled to leave to appeal against the sentence imposed.

Orders