Trowsdale v The Queen

Case [2011] VSCA 81


SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2009 0632

RYAN SCOTT TROWSDALE Appellant
v
THE QUEEN Respondent

---

JUDGES BONGIORNO, HARPER and HANSEN JJA
WHERE HELD MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING 2 February 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT 30 March 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION [2011] VSCA 81
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM R v Trowsdale (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Murphy, 8 May 2009)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence appeal – Recklessly causing serious injury – ‘Glassing’ – Injuries probably permanent – Plea of guilty – Sentencing practices at time – Winch v The Queen [2010] VSCA 141 – Appeal allowed.

---

APPEARANCES: COUNSEL SOLICITORS
For the Applicant: Mr P F Tehan QC Slades & Parsons Solicitors
For the Crown: Mr G J C Silbert SC Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BONGIORNO JA:

  1. On 24 December 2006, Ryan Scott Trowsdale, then aged 24, threw a beer glass at the head of 19-year-old Michael James Shale in a bar at the Portsea Hotel.  He threw the glass from a distance of two or three metres in a manner which witnesses described as ‘hard’.  It shattered and caused Shale serious injuries to his right eye and face.  Trowsdale later told police that at the time he had had ‘four or five’ beers and was ‘in the best mood ever’.  He also told police that he had thrown the glass at the floor and its striking of Shale was, in effect, accidental.  However, ultimately, he did not persist in this obvious lie.

  1. There is no suggestion that Shale in any way provoked this attack.  The only relevant contact between him and his assailant had been on 8 December 2006 when both had attended a club in Port Melbourne where Shale had danced with a girl named ‘Nikki’.  It later emerged that Trowsdale was Nikki’s ‘boyfriend’ and that when he became aware of the contact between her and Shale he was annoyed.  That they both attended the Portsea Hotel on Christmas Eve appears to have been a coincidence.

  1. Shortly after the assault, Trowsdale was heard to say ‘tell your friend I hope he gets a fucking glass eye’.  Shortly afterwards he phoned a friend of the victim, one Derek Walter and said words to the effect ‘if you tell the cops who I am I’m going to kill you’.  He then repeated words to the same effect. 

  1. As a result of this assault, Shale suffered very serious injuries to his right eye and to the surrounding area of his face.  He has required extensive surgical intervention and has been left with a severe diminution of vision in his right eye with a very uncertain prognosis.

  1. Although he fled the scene, Trowsdale was ultimately arrested, along with an accomplice, one Pollard, and subsequently charged with a very large number of offences, including intentionally causing serious injury.  There followed appearances in the Magistrates’ Court on 23 January, 11 April, 14 June and 17 December 2007 ultimately resulting in Trowsdale (and Pollard) being committed for trial.…

Continue reading Trowsdale v The Queen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Trowsdale v The Queen [2011] VSCA 81
Case
[2011] VSCA 81
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The defendant, Trowsdale, appealed against his sentence following his conviction for recklessly causing serious injury through the act of 'glassing'. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Trowsdale, who had pleaded guilty, was sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period. The Crown cross-appealed the length of the non-parole period.

The central legal issues before the court were the appropriate principles to apply in assessing the severity of the sentence, and whether the trial judge had erred in his application of these principles. Specifically, the court had to consider the gravity of the offence, the need for general deterrence, and the impact of the sentence on the offender, while taking into account the sentencing practices at the time of the offence and the decision in Winch v The Queen. The court also needed to determine if the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate.

The court found that the trial judge had not adequately considered the need for general deterrence and had failed to appropriately weigh the principles of sentencing at the time of the offence. The court held that the sentence imposed was manifestly inadequate in light of the gravity of the offence and the need for general deterrence. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remitted to the County Court for resentencing. In light of the remittal, the Crown's cross-appeal was dismissed as moot.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal allowed.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.