Legal Research
Cases
Sikoulabout v The Queen

Sikoulabout v The Queen

Case [2018] VSCA 268 24 October 2018

Appeal

Sentencing

Parity with Co-accused

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0075

MAC SIKOULABOUT	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	McLEISH and NIALL JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	10 October 2018
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	24 October 2018
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSCA 268
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Sikoulabout (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge M Bourke, 16 March 2018)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Applicant pleaded guilty to two charges of aggravated home invasion, two charges of armed robbery, one charge of criminal damage and one charge of theft – Sentenced to total effective sentence of 11 years and six months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 8 years – Sentences imposed on two co-offenders at the same time – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Parity with co-accused – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr D C Hallowes SC with Mr S Norton	Stary Norton Halphen
For the Crown	Mr B Sonnet	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

McLEISH JA
NIALL JA:

On 12 February 2018, the applicant pleaded guilty in the County Court to two charges of aggravated home invasion, two charges of armed robbery, one charge of criminal damage, and one charge of theft. On 16 March 2018, he was sentenced as follows:

Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Aggravated home invasion [Crimes Act 1958 s 77B] 25 years 7 years 2 years 6 months

2 Armed robbery [Crimes Act 1958 s 75A] 25 years 4 years 6 months 6 months

3 Damaging property [Crimes Act 1958 s 197(1)] 10 years 6 months Nil

4 Aggravated home invasion [Crimes Act 1958 s 77B] 25 years 8 years Base sentence

5 Armed robbery [Crimes Act 1958 s 75A] 25 years 4 years 6 months

6 Theft [Crimes Act 1958 s 74(1)] 10 years 6 months Nil

Total Effective Sentence: 11 years 6 months

Non-parole Period: 8 years

Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 290 days

6AAA Statement: 14 years with a non-parole period of 11 years

Other Orders: Order for the taking of a forensic sample pursuant to s 464ZF of the Crimes Act 1958. Confiscation and forfeiture orders.

Two of the applicant’s co-offenders, Kia Toumngeun and Stephen White, pleaded guilty to various charges and were sentenced at the same time as the applicant.

Toumngeun was sentenced as follows:

Charge on Indictment Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Aggravated home invasion [Crimes Act 1958 s 77B] 25 years 7 years 2 years 6 months

2 Armed robbery [Crimes Act 1958 s 75A] 25 years 4 years 6 months 6 months

4 Aggravated home invasion [Crimes Act 1958 s 77B] 25 years 8 years Base sentence

5 Armed robbery [Crimes Act 1958 s 75A] 25 years 4 years 6 months 6 months

6 Theft [Crimes Act 1958 s 74(1)] 10 years 6 months Nil

8 Possessing a firearm as a prohibited person [Firearms Act

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 Sikoulabout v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Sikoulabout v The Queen [2018] VSCA 268
Case: [2018] VSCA 268
Decision Date: 24 October 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Sikoulabout v The Queen, the appellant sought leave to appeal against a sentence imposed by the Supreme Court of Queensland. Sikoulabout had pleaded guilty to two counts of aggravated home invasion, two counts of armed robbery, one count of criminal damage, and one count of theft. The court sentenced him to a total effective term of 11 years and six months in imprisonment, with a non-parole period of eight years. The sentences for two co-offenders were imposed concurrently at the same time. The appellant contended that the sentence was manifestly excessive and failed to appropriately consider parity with his co-offenders.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge appropriately considered the principle of parity with co-offenders. The appellant argued that the sentence was disproportionately severe, and that the judge did not adequately address the principle of parity. The appellant's legal representatives submitted that the sentences imposed on the co-offenders were significantly less, and that this disparity warranted a reduction in the appellant's sentence. The Crown, on the other hand, contended that the sentence was appropriate and that the judge had considered all relevant factors, including the principle of parity.

The court held that, while the sentence was indeed severe, it was not manifestly excessive. The sentencing judge had carefully considered the appellant's offending, his personal circumstances, and the principle of parity with his co-offenders. The court found that the judge had appropriately balanced these factors and that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offending. The court also noted that the appellant's co-offenders had entered into plea agreements, which resulted in lesser sentences, and that this was a relevant consideration in the sentencing process. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, holding that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the principle of parity.

No further orders were made by the court.

Orders