Legal Research
Cases
Tannous v The Queen

Tannous v The Queen

Case [2017] VSCA 91 2 May 2017

Sentencing

Rehabilitation

Community Correction Order

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2016 0145

TANNOUS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	REDLICH and FERGUSON JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7 February, 28 March 2017
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	2 May 2017
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSCA 91
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Tannous (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, 14 June 2016, Judge Pilgrim)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING – Appeal against sentence of seven years and six months’ imprisonment – Applicant pleaded guilty to numerous charges including multiple arson offences and assaulting emergency worker – Applicant had consumed methylamphetamine in days before offending – Applicant had an acquired brain injury and mental health issues – Need for judge to explain ways mental impairment taken into account when sentencing – Crown conceded principle of parsimony required shortest custodial term – Sentence manifestly excessive – Applicant resentenced to term of imprisonment combined with lengthy Community Correction Order – R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269, Boulton v The Queen (2014) 46 VR 308, R v Koumis (2008) 18 VR 434, R v Pato [2011] VSCA 223.

CRIMINAL LAW – SENTENCING – Offence of arson – Community Correction Order regime for arson offences permits lengthy imprisonment combined with CCO – Applicant resentenced to four years’ imprisonment and four year Community Correction Order – Primary objective of Community Correction Order should be rehabilitative – Interaction between Community Correction Order and parole – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 11, 44.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr RF Edney with Mr R Slattery	Turnbull Lawyers
For the Respondent	Mr C Boyce SC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA
FERGUSON JA:

Introduction

On 17 May 2016, the applicant pleaded guilty to five charges of arson, one charge of attempted armed robbery, one charge of assaulting an emergency worker, one charge of affray, one charge of attempted arson and one summary charge of driving whilst suspended. As will be seen from what follows, the charges relate to events that took place on 30 August 2015. On that evening, the applicant (who has an acquired brain injury and psychological health issues) was agitated, drug affected and sleep deprived. Whilst in this state, he drove his stepmother’s Mercedes Benz car to Meadow Heights, crashed and set the car alight. The applicant then committed further arson offences, brandished an axe and assaulted a fireman who had initially attended (with other fire officers) to extinguish the burning Mercedes. The applicant was sentenced on 14 June 2016 as follows:

Charge

Offence

Maximum

Sentence

Cumulation

1.     Arson [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 197(1) and (6)] 10y 3y Base sentence

2.     Attempted armed robbery [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 321M and 75A] 20y 2y 1y

3.     Arson [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 197(1) and (6)] 10y 1y –

4.     Arson [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 197(1) and (6)] 10y 3y 1y

5.     Arson [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 197(1) and (6)] 10y 3y

Charge	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1.	Arson [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 197(1) and (6)]	10y	3y	Base sentence
2.	Attempted armed robbery [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 321M and 75A]	20y	2y	1y
3.	Arson [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 197(1) and (6)]	10y	1y	–
4.	Arson [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 197(1) and (6)]	10y	3y	1y
5.	Arson [Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 197(1) and (6)]	10y	3y

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 Tannous v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Tannous v The Queen [2017] VSCA 91
Case: [2017] VSCA 91
Decision Date: 2 May 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this matter appealed against his sentence of seven years and six months' imprisonment, imposed following his guilty plea to numerous charges, including multiple arson offences and assaulting an emergency worker. The Court of Appeal considered the applicant's background, which included the consumption of methylamphetamine in the days preceding the offending, as well as an acquired brain injury and mental health issues. The appeal centred on the need for the sentencing judge to adequately explain how the applicant's mental impairment was taken into account when determining the sentence. The Crown conceded that the principle of parsimony required the shortest custodial term sufficient to achieve the purposes of sentencing, and that the original sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court examined the interaction between the Community Correction Order regime for arson offences and the principles of sentencing, including the principle of parsimony and the need for a rehabilitative approach. The court referenced several precedents, including R v Verdins, Boulton v The Queen, R v Koumis, and R v Pato, to support its reasoning. Ultimately, the court found that the original sentence was manifestly excessive and resentenced the applicant to a term of imprisonment combined with a lengthy Community Correction Order, taking into account the applicant's mental impairment and the need for a rehabilitative approach. The court also noted the importance of ensuring that the primary objective of a Community Correction Order is rehabilitative, and considered the interaction between the Community Correction Order and parole under the Sentencing Act 1991.

The applicant was resentenced to four years' imprisonment and a four-year Community Correction Order. The court's decision highlights the importance of considering an offender's mental impairment and background when determining an appropriate sentence, as well as the need for a rehabilitative approach in imposing a Community Correction Order. The court's consideration of relevant precedents and statutory provisions also demonstrates the importance of ensuring that sentencing decisions are consistent with the principles of the law and the purposes of sentencing.

Orders