Stefani v The King - [2023] VSCA 183

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2023 0011

NICK STEFANI	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WALKER JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 July 2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 August 2023
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSCA 183
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2022] VSC 821 (Justice Tinney)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Applicant pleaded guilty to four charges concerning kidnapping and assault – Total effective sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of 8 years’ imprisonment – Whether non-parole period was reasonably open to sentencing judge – Non-parole period 80 per cent of head sentence – Ratio of non-parole period outside of ‘usual’ range – No reasons given by sentencing judge – Leave to appeal sentence granted.

McLean v The Queen [2018] VSCA 209, Cummins (a pseudonym) v The Queen [2013] VSCA 352, Kumova v The Queen (2012) 37 VR 538, Gray v R [2010] VSCA 312 applied.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Dr T Alexander with Ms A C Sharpley
Respondent:		Ms A Moran
Solicitors
Applicant:	Slades & Parsons Solicitors
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WALKER JA:

On 31 January 2022 the applicant pleaded guilty before a judge of the Supreme Court to four charges concerning kidnapping and assault. On 22 December 2022 he was sentence by the Court as follows:[1]
[1]DPP v Hooper & Stefani [2022] VSC 821, [172]–[180] (‘Reasons’).

Charge on Indictment

Offence

Max Penalty

Sentence

Cumulation

1 Causing injury intentionally contrary to s 18 of the Crimes Act 1958 10 years 6 years 1 year

2 Kidnapping contrary to common law 25 years 7 years Base

3 False imprisonment contrary to common law 10 years 6 years 1 year

4 Common assault contrary to common law 5 years 3 years 1 year

Total Effective Sentence: 10 years’ imprisonment

Non-Parole Period: 8 years’ imprisonment

Pre-sentence Detention Declared: 1358 days

Section 6AAA Statement:
Total Effective Sentence 14 years’ imprisonment

Non Parole-Period 11 years’ imprisonment

The applicant now seeks leave to appeal his sentence on the single ground that the sentencing judge erred in failing to:
(a)impose a sentence which allowed greater disparity between the total effective sentence and a non-parole period;
(b)give reasons for fixing the non-parole period.
For the following reasons, I would grant leave to appeal. In summary, in my opinion the imposition of a non-parole period of 80 per cent of the head sentence ‘invites scrutiny’ in the present case, where the judge gave no reasons for imposing a non-parole period of that order.

Factual background

The factual background is set out in the sentencing judge’s remarks, with which the applicant took no issue in respect of the events that occurred. In summary, it is as follows.
The victim, Bradley Lyons, was 30 years of age and married to Jana Hooper, who was a co-offender. The applicant lived with Mr Lyons and Hooper at the time of these events, sleeping in a bungalow at the rear of their property on McCullough…

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 Stefani v The King

Details

AGLC: Stefani v The King [2023] VSCA 183
Case: [2023] VSCA 183
Decision Date: 14 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Stefani v The King, the applicant appealed against his sentence following a guilty plea to four charges of kidnapping and assault. The Supreme Court of Victoria was tasked with determining whether the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge was reasonably open to them. The applicant received a total effective sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years. This non-parole period represented 80% of the head sentence, which is outside the 'usual' range and the sentencing judge provided no reasons for their decision.

The court had to decide if the ratio of the non-parole period to the head sentence was reasonably open to the sentencing judge, given that it was outside the usual range and no reasons were provided. The court considered relevant precedents such as McLean v The Queen, Cummins v The Queen, Kumova v The Queen, and Gray v R, which provided guidance on the appropriate ratio of non-parole periods to head sentences. The court also had to consider whether the absence of reasons from the sentencing judge meant the sentence was not reasonably open.

In reaching its decision, the court considered the principles established in the cited cases and found that the non-parole period of 8 years was not reasonably open to the sentencing judge. The ratio of the non-parole period to the head sentence was outside the usual range, and the lack of reasons provided by the sentencing judge further undermined the reasonableness of the sentence. Consequently, the court granted leave to appeal the sentence. Further orders regarding the sentence were not specified in the text.

Orders