Legal Research
Cases
Stevens v The Queen

Stevens v The Queen

Case [2021] VSCA 218 10 August 2021

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2020 0148

MATTHEW STEVENS	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

----

JUDGE:	PRIEST and KENNEDY JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 August 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 August 2021
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSCA 218
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Stevens [2020] VCC 936 (Judge Mullaly)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal — Sentence — Aggravated burglary and associated offences — Intellectual disability and deprived background — Serious prior convictions — Grim prospects of rehabilitation — Totality — Whether sentence of 10 years and 9 months’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 8 years and 4 months manifestly excessive — Appeal allowed — Appellant resentenced to nine years’ imprisonment with non-parole period 6 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant:	Mr D McGlone	Adrian Paull Criminal Lawyers
For the Respondent:	Ms M Mahady	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

PRIEST JA
KENNEDY JA:

Introduction

Now aged 35 years,[1] the appellant has an extremely low intellectual capacity. Intellectual testing using the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS IV) indicates that he has a full-scale IQ of 60, placing him at the 0.4^th percentile, where 99.6 per cent of his age-related peers would do better.
[1]His date of birth is 1 September 1985.

Significantly, the appellant has a worrying criminal history, commencing in the adult jurisdiction in 2005, when he was aged 19 years.[2] Thus, on the plea he admitted a criminal record which contained findings of guilt or convictions for a range of offences, including recklessly causing injury (2005); intentionally causing injury (2005); assault with a weapon (2006); possessing a controlled weapon (2009); theft (2010 and 2011); aggravated burglary (2011); indecent assault (2011); making a threat to kill (2011); and entering a private place without authorisation (2018). Further, he has breached community based orders, community correction orders (‘CCOs’) and conditions of parole. As will become clear, the appellant’s convictions for aggravated burglary, indecent assault and making a threat to kill in 2011, are of particular relevance.
[2]We note that in her report, tendered on the plea (Exhibit 1), Ms Gina Cidoni, clinical psychologist, referred to prior findings of guilt in the Children’s Court dating back to 2001:
[The appellant’s] priors date back to January 2001 in the Children’s Court at age 15, where he appeared in relation to intentionally damage property and was placed on a Good Behaviour Bond (GBB) without conviction. He was placed on probation without conviction in May 2003 for aggravated burglary (person present) and theft. He first appeared in the Magistrates’ Court in April 2005 where he was placed on a Community Based Order (CBO) for recklessly cause injury. …

This appeal, brought pursuant to leave earlier granted,[3] concerns sentences imposed upon the appellant by a judge in the County Court at Geelong on 26 June 2020.
[3]Stevens v The Queen (Unreported, Court of Appeal, Priest JA, 14 December 2020).

Hence, on 25 May 2020, the appellant pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary[4] (charges 1, 3 and…

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 [2021] VSCA 218
Case: [2021] VSCA 218
Decision Date: 10 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Stevens appealed against his conviction and sentence for aggravated burglary and associated offences. The High Court of Australia was called upon to consider whether the sentence was manifestly excessive. The central issue was whether the sentence of 10 years and 9 months’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years and 4 months, was manifestly excessive given the appellant’s intellectual disability, deprived background, prior convictions, and prospects of rehabilitation.

The court considered the totality principle, weighing the appellant’s intellectual disability and deprived background against his serious prior criminal history. The court acknowledged that the appellant’s background and disability were significant mitigating factors, but also recognised the gravity of the current offences and the need for general deterrence. The court found that the sentence imposed was indeed manifestly excessive, taking into account all the circumstances of the case. The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was resentenced to nine years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years.

The court’s decision emphasised the importance of a balanced approach to sentencing, recognising the appellant’s vulnerabilities while also addressing the need for public protection. By reducing the sentence, the court aimed to ensure that the punishment was proportionate to the crimes committed, taking into account both the individual circumstances of the offender and the broader societal interests.

Orders