Stevens v The Queen - [2012] VSCA 192

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2012 0014

MATTHEW KEIR STEVENS
	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN, WEINBERG and BONGIORNO JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 August 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	14 August 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 192
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP (Vic) v Stevens (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Mullaly, 7 December 2011)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Appellant convicted of one charge of aggravated burglary, four charges of indecent assault and one charge of making a threat to kill –Sentenced to total effective sentence of seven years and three months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of five years – Whether cumulation ordered by sentencing judge was excessive – Whether sentence was manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed – No point of principle.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr R F Edney	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Crown	Mr C J Ryan SC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA:

I will ask Bongiorno JA to deliver the first judgment.

BONGIORNO JA:

At the November 2011 sittings of the County Court at Geelong, the appellant, Matthew Keir Stevens, was found guilty by a jury of a number of offences in each of two trials. The trials were concerned with offences committed on 22 November 2007 and 14 April 2010 respectively. In respect of the first offending in time, he was convicted of one charge of aggravated burglary (charge 1) and one charge of indecently assaulting MC, an 18‑year‑old woman (charge 2). In respect of the second episode of offending, he was convicted of three charges of indecently assaulting CT (charges 4, 6 and 7) and one charge of threatening to kill CT (charge 5).[1] CT was also a young adult female.
[1]Although there were two trials, there was but one indictment. The two charges relating to the offences against MC ― charges 1 and 2 ― were severed from the indictment and tried separately.

The first episode of offending occurred when the appellant entered a house in a Geelong suburb in the early hours of the morning with the intention of committing a sexual assault. He entered the bedroom of the victim, got onto her bed, took down his tracksuit pants and exposed his penis to her. He put his hands under the bed clothes and touched the victim on her pubic area or genitalia. That woke her up. She pushed his hand away and saw that he was lying on her bed masturbating. He then left the house and, although he left a fingerprint, he was not matched to that fingerprint until some years later. The offending led to one charge of aggravated burglary and one charge of indecent assault, of both of which he was convicted.

The second episode of offending was similar. It occurred in another Geelong suburb in a house shared by three young women. The appellant entered the house in the early hours of the morning through an unlocked…

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 Stevens v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Stevens v The Queen [2012] VSCA 192
Case: [2012] VSCA 192
Decision Date: 14 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Stevens, was convicted of one count of aggravated burglary, four counts of indecent assault, and one count of making a threat to kill. He was sentenced to a total effective term of seven years and three months in imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years. The appeal was brought before the court to challenge the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appellant argued that the cumulative sentence was excessive and that the overall sentence was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the cumulative sentence ordered by the sentencing judge was excessive and whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the principles of sentencing for multiple offences and whether the trial judge had properly applied those principles. The court also needed to assess whether the sentence was disproportionate to the crimes committed, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences.

The court reviewed the trial judge's sentencing remarks and the principles of cumulative sentencing, noting that the judge had carefully considered the appellant's criminal history, the seriousness of the offences, and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately exercised his discretion in imposing the sentence and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The court held that there was no point of principle warranting interference with the sentence imposed by the trial judge.

The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The court confirmed that the sentence was within the range of appropriate penalties for the crimes committed and that there were no errors in the trial judge's application of sentencing principles.

Orders