Legal Research
Cases
Trowsdale v The King

Trowsdale v The King

Case [2024] VSCA 168 22 July 2024

Appeal

Sentencing

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S EAPCR 2024 0039

RYAN TROWSDALE	Applicant
v
THE KING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	TAYLOR JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 July 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 July 2024
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSCA 168
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Trowsdale [2022] VCC 1496 (Judge Lauritsen)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Appeal – Sentence – Drug, firearm and family violence offending – Whether judge failed to give any weight to delay – Whether the judge failed to give any weight to the applicant’s impaired intellectual functioning – Application for leave to appeal refused.

DPP v Merryfull and Bloomfield [2023] VSCA 244; Stafford v The King [2022] VSCA 229; R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 240; Brown v The Queen (2020) 62 VR 491; Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 referred to.

---

Counsel
Applicant:		Mr C Wareham
Respondent:		Ms E Ruddle KC
Solicitors
Applicant:	Sarah Tricarico Lawyers
Respondent:	Ms A Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

TAYLOR JA:

Introduction and overview

On 10 August 2022 the applicant pleaded guilty to numerous of drug, firearm, family violence and bail offences. On 7 September 2022 he was sentenced as follows.

Charge on Indictment	Offence	Max Penalty	Sentence	Cumulation
Indictment K12502007.1
1	Trafficking in a Drug of Dependence – Commercial Quantity	25 years’ imprisonment	6 years’ imprisonment	Base
2	Possession of a Tablet Press	5 years’ imprisonment and / or 600 penalty units	1 year’s imprisonment	Nil
3	Prohibited Person Possess a Firearm	10 years’ imprisonment	1 year and 6 months’ imprisonment	6 months
4	Possession of a Drug of Dependence	1 year’s imprisonment and / or 30 penalty units	1 month’s imprisonment	Nil
5	Failure to Provide Information or Assistance for Data Under Warrant	5 years’ imprisonment	6 months’ imprisonment	Nil
Related Summary Offence
7	Possess Cartridge/Ammunition without Licence or Permit	40 penalty units	$500 fine	N/A
Total Effective Sentence on Indictment K12502007.1: 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment
Indictment N10800402
1	Persistent Contravention of a Family Violence Intervention Order	5 years’ imprisonment	6 months’ imprisonment	Nil
2	Persistent Contravention of a Family Violence Intervention Order	5 years’ imprisonment	9 months’ imprisonment	Nil
3	Persistent Contravention of a Family Violence Intervention Order	5 years’ imprisonment	9 months’ imprisonment	9 months
4	Destroying property	10 years’ imprisonment	1 month’s imprisonment	Nil
Related Summary Offences
5	Commit Indictable Offence Whilst on Bail	3 months’ imprisonment or 30 penalty units	1 month’s imprisonment	Nil
11	Unlawful Assault	3 months’ imprisonment or 15 penalty units	3 months’ imprisonment	Nil
Total Effective Sentence on Indictment N10800402: 9 months’ imprisonment (of which 9 months is cumulative on the sentence imposed on Indictment K12502007.1)
Global Total Effective Sentence:		7 years and 3 months’ imprisonment
Non-Parole Period:		4 years and 4 months
Pre-sentence Detention Declared:		532 days
Section 6AAA Statement:		10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years
Other Relevant Orders: Forfeiture and Disposal Orders.

The applicant now seeks leave for an extension of time in…

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 Trowsdale v The King

Details

AGLC: Trowsdale v The King [2024] VSCA 168
Case: [2024] VSCA 168
Decision Date: 22 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Trowsdale, appealed against his sentence for drug, firearm, and family violence offending. The appeal was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge erred in not adequately considering the delay in the proceedings and the appellant's impaired intellectual functioning when imposing the sentence. Trowsdale argued that the trial judge should have given greater weight to these factors in determining the appropriate sentence.

The court examined the sentencing principles and the relevant authorities, including DPP v Merryfull and Bloomfield, Stafford v The King, R v Verdins, Brown v The Queen, and Muldrock v The Queen. The court concluded that the trial judge had considered the delay and the appellant's impaired intellectual functioning, but did not err in the way they were weighed against other factors. The court found that the trial judge had appropriately exercised their discretion in imposing the sentence, taking into account all relevant factors, including the seriousness of the offending and the need for deterrence.

Accordingly, the court dismissed the appeal and refused the application for leave to appeal. The sentence imposed by the trial judge was upheld as appropriate and proportionate to the offending. The court held that the trial judge had not failed to give any weight to the delay or the appellant’s impaired intellectual functioning, and therefore, the appeal was unsuccessful.

Orders