Legal Research
Cases
Sianas v The Queen

Sianas v The Queen

Case [2016] VSCA 84 27 April 2016

Sentencing

Criminal Liability

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0004

DEAN SIANAS	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	OSBORN and PRIEST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 April 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	27 April 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 84
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Sianas (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge McInerney, 26 November 2015)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Application – Applicant pleaded guilty to intentionally causing serious injury and armed robbery – Two victims - ‘Glassing’ type offence relating to one victim - Broken bottle thrust into face of victim causing laceration and facial scarring – Applicant sentenced to 22 months’ imprisonment and a three year Community Correction Order with conditions – Whether injury suffered during the offending might be seen as a form of ‘extra-curial punishment’ going in mitigation of sentence - Whether imposition of adult imprisonment was manifestly excessive – Application for leave to appeal refused.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr M Stanton	Stary Norton Halphen
For the Crown	Mr D A Trapnell QC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

OSBORN JA:

I will ask Priest JA to deliver the first judgment.

PRIEST JA:

Introduction

Dean Sianas, the applicant, was born on 21 February 1996. He is now aged 20 years, but was aged 18 when he committed serious offences on 23 September 2014.

On 28 August 2015, the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to intentionally causing serious injury,[1] charge 1, and armed robbery,[2] charge 2. The judge sentenced him on 26 November 2015 to be imprisoned for 20 months on charge 1 and for 12 months on charge 2. Two months of the sentence on charge 2 was ordered to be served cumulatively with the sentence on charge 1, leading to a total effective sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment. The judge also ordered the imposition of a community correction order (‘CCO’) on both charges, the CCO to commence upon the applicant’s release from prison and to endure for three years. Among the conditions attached to the CCO, the applicant is required to perform 150 hours of community work;[3] undergo assessment and treatment (including testing) for drug and alcohol abuse or dependency;[4] and undergo mental health assessment and treatment, that may include psychological, neuropsychological or psychiatric treatment in a hospital or residential facility;[5] and participate in programs or courses to address factors relating to his offending behaviour.[6]
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 16. The maximum penalty is 20 years’ imprisonment.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 75A. The maximum penalty is 25 years’ imprisonment.
[3]Sentencing Act 1991, s 48C.
[4]Sentencing Act 1991, s 48D(3)(a) and (b).
[5]Sentencing Act 1991, s 48D(3)(d) and (e).
[6]Sentencing Act 1991, s 48D(3)(f).

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against the sentence on a single ground:

1. The Learned Sentencing Judge erred in sentencing the Applicant to adult imprisonment.
Particulars

(a) The Learned Sentencing Judge erred when assessing the…

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 Sianas v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Sianas v The Queen [2016] VSCA 84
Case: [2016] VSCA 84
Decision Date: 27 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Sianas sought leave to appeal against his sentence following a conviction for intentionally causing serious injury and armed robbery. The dispute involved the severity of the sentence imposed by the court and whether it was manifestly excessive. The application was heard in the High Court of Australia. The key legal issues that the Court had to decide were whether the injuries suffered by the victim could be considered as a form of extra-curial punishment that might mitigate the sentence, and if the imposition of adult imprisonment was manifestly excessive.

The Court considered the nature and severity of the offences committed by Sianas. It was noted that the victim had suffered significant injuries from a glass bottle being thrust into their face, resulting in lacerations and facial scarring. Despite the severity of the injuries, the Court concluded that these injuries did not constitute an extra-curial punishment that could be considered in mitigation of the sentence. The Court also examined the principle of proportionality in sentencing and found that the sentence of 22 months’ imprisonment and a three-year Community Correction Order with conditions was appropriate given the seriousness of the offences. The Court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive.

Consequently, the Court refused Sianas’ application for leave to appeal. The Court determined that the sentence imposed was proportionate to the severity of the offences committed and that the injuries suffered by the victim did not warrant a reduction in the sentence. The High Court upheld the original sentencing decision, thereby finalising the legal dispute between the parties.

Orders