Legal Research
Cases
Stanger v The Queen

Stanger v The Queen

Case [2021] VSCA 25 23 February 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0188

LIAM STANGER	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, KAYE and T FORREST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 February 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	23 February 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 25
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2020] VCC 735 (Judge Dalziel)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Appellant lit two bushfires – Fires lit in fire danger period – Fuel hazard rating extreme for location of fires – Appellant pleaded guilty to one rolled-up charge of intentionally causing a bushfire – Guilty plea – Appellant suffering neurodevelopmental disorder – Total effective sentence of 3 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 2 years – Leave to appeal granted on the papers – Whether sentence manifestly excessive – Sentence not wholly outside range of sentencing options – Appeal dismissed – Lisle v The Queen [2017] VSCA 4, Ganon v The Queen [2018] VSCA 110, Robson v The Queen [2018] VSCA 256 distinguished.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr A G Waters with Ms A Renieris	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Ms K Hamill	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P
KAYE JA
T FORREST JA:

The appellant pleaded guilty to one single rolled-up charge of intentionally causing bushfires on 23 February 2019 in bushland in north-east Victoria. Following a plea on his behalf, he was sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of three years with a non-parole period of two years. That sentence was constituted as follows:

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1.	Intentionally causing a bushfire (s. 201A Crimes Act 1958)	15 years’ imprisonment	3 years’ imprisonment	—
Total Effective Sentence:		3 years’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:		2 years’ imprisonment
Pre-sentence detention declared:		N/A (serving sentence)
6AAAA Statement: 5 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 3 years
Other relevant orders: N/A

The appellant appeals, pursuant to leave, against the sentence on the ground that it is manifestly excessive.

Circumstances of offences

The appellant was born in December 1981, and at the time of the offending he was 37 years of age. Until early 2018 he had been residing in Cooma, New South Wales. In the period immediately preceding the incidents, that were the subject of the charge, he was residing in Numurkah, Victoria.

On Saturday 23 February 2019, the appellant left an area around Cobram in Victoria in his vehicle, in order to drive to Cooma to collect his pet dog from his father’s home. At about 5:00 pm, he was intercepted by police exceeding the speed limit outside Tallangatta. He was given a verbal warning, and then continued to proceed in an easterly direction on the Murray Valley Highway towards the border of Victoria and New South Wales. At the time of the interception, the appellant was observed to be angry, agitated and aggressive.

Having resumed his journey, the appellant continued to drive east. He then, at about 5:15 pm, turned…

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 Stanger v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Liam Stanger v The Queen [2021] VSCA 25
Case: [2021] VSCA 25
Decision Date: 23 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stanger v The Queen involved an appellant who had pleaded guilty to a charge of intentionally causing a bushfire during a fire danger period, when the fuel hazard rating was extreme in the location where the fires were lit. The case was heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal. The appellant, who was suffering from a neurodevelopmental disorder, was sentenced to a total effective term of three years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years. The appellant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, given the circumstances of the case and the appellant's neurodevelopmental disorder. The court had to consider the relevant sentencing principles and the appropriate range of penalties for the offence of intentionally causing a bushfire under the circumstances. It also needed to assess the appellant's culpability and the need for the sentence to serve as a deterrent and to promote rehabilitation.

The court found that the sentence was not wholly outside the range of sentencing options available for the offence. It noted that the total effective sentence and the non-parole period were within the sentencing guidelines for the offence. The court also considered the appellant's neurodevelopmental disorder and the impact it had on his culpability and the need for rehabilitation. It distinguished the case from previous cases where the sentences were found to be manifestly excessive, such as Lisle v The Queen, Ganon v The Queen, and Robson v The Queen. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal.

Orders