Skeates (a pseudonym) v The King

Case [2023] VSCA 226

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL
S EAPCR 2022 0105
ZAC SKEATES (A PSEUDONYM) Applicant
v
THE KING Respondent

---

JUDGES: EMERTON P, NIALL and TAYLOR JJA
WHERE HELD: Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING: 7 August 2023 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 19 September 2023
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION: [2023] VSCA 226
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM: DPP v Skeates (A Pseudonym) [2022] VCC 692 (Judge Smallwood)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Threats, various assault offences, rape and breaches of family violence intervention orders – Offences committed against four intimate partners – Significant history of family violence offending – Whether individual sentences and orders for cumulation manifestly excessive – Importance of family violence context in assessing gravity of offending – General deterrence, specific deterrence and community protection of paramount importance – Leave to appeal refused.

Pasinis v The Queen [2014] VSCA 97, Marrah v The Queen [2014] VSCA 119, DPP v Meyers (2014) 44 VR 486 discussed; Filiz v The Queen [2014] VSCA 212, Uzun v The Queen [2015] VSCA 292, Kalala v The Queen (2017) 269 A Crim R 1, Nolan v The Queen [2017] VSCA 240, DPP v Smith [2019] VSCA 266, Laa v The Queen [2020] VSCA 136 referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant: Mr J Connolly
Respondent: Ms D Piekusis KC

Solicitors
Applicant: SLKQ Lawyers
Respondent: Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

EMERTON P
NIALL JA
TAYLOR JA:

Introduction and Overview

  1. On 18 February 2022 the applicant pleaded guilty to 15 charges across two indictments. The charges concerned threats, various assault offences, rape and breaches of family violence intervention orders (‘FVIOs’) committed against four of the applicant’s intimate partners between July 2016 and September 2019.

  2. Following a plea hearing in the County Court on 13 May 2022, the applicant was sentenced on 17 May 2022 as follows:

Charge

Offence

Max Penalty

Sentence

Cumulation
Indictment K12399880A
1 Common assault contrary to common law 5 years 1 year N/A
2 Causing injury intentionally 10 years

2 years

6 months

 12 months
3 Common assault contrary to common law 5 years 2 years 6 months
4 Make threat to inflict serious injury 5 years 6 months N/A
5 Rape 25 years

5 years

6 months

 Base
6 Causing injury intentionally 10 years 3 years 12 months
Total Effective Sentence imposed on Indictment K12399880A: 8 years’ imprisonment

Indictment K12399880B
1 Causing injury intentionally 10 years 1 year 3 months
2 Common assault contrary to common law 5 years 2 years Base
3 Common assault contrary to common law 5 years 1 year N/A
4 Causing injury recklessly 5 years

1 year

6 months

 6 months
5 Persistent contravention of a FVIO 5 years’ imprisonment or a fine (max 600 penalty units) or both 1 year N/A
6 Common assault contrary to common law 5 years 1 year N/A
7 Causing injury intentionally 10 years 2 years 6 months
8 Causing injury intentionally 10 years 2 years 9 months
9 Persistent contravention of a FVIO 5 years’…

Continue reading Skeates (a pseudonym) v The King

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Skeates (a pseudonym) v The King [2023] VSCA 226
Case
[2023] VSCA 226
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Skeates, the appellant, versus The King, the respondent, the matter was brought before the court for appeal against sentence. Skeates was convicted of multiple offences including threats, various assault offences, rape and breaches of family violence intervention orders. The offences were committed against four intimate partners and Skeates had a significant history of family violence offending. The court was required to determine whether the individual sentences and orders for cumulation were manifestly excessive, and whether the context of family violence should be considered in assessing the gravity of the offending.

The court considered the importance of family violence in assessing the gravity of the offending and emphasised that general deterrence, specific deterrence and community protection were of paramount importance. The court noted that the sentencing judge had approached the task with the need to arrive at a proportionate sentence in mind. The court held that the individual sentences reflected the true gravity of each separate offence and the orders for cumulation produced a total effective sentence that was well within the range available to give effect to all sentencing objectives. The court further held that the sentence was not crushing.

The court ultimately refused leave to appeal, finding that there was no discernible error in the individual sentences or orders for cumulation. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the overall criminal offending and was not manifestly excessive. The court emphasised that the context of family violence was an important factor in assessing the gravity of the offending, but this did not necessarily lead to a lighter sentence. The court held that general deterrence, specific deterrence and community protection were of paramount importance and the sentence reflected these objectives.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

The learned sentencing judge approached the sentencing task conscious of the need to arrive at a sentence that was proportionate to the overall criminal offending.[53] In neither the individual sentences nor the orders for cumulation is error discernible. The individual sentences reflected the true gravity of each separate offence. The orders for cumulation produced a total effective sentence well within the range available to give effect to all sentencing objectives and, further, was not crushing. [53]Mill v The Queen (1988) 166 CLR 59; [1988] HCA 70.Conclusion Leave to appeal must be refused.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.