Legal Research
Cases
Walker v The Queen

Walker v The Queen

Case [2019] VSCA 137 20 June 2019

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2018 0104

MICAH WALKER	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

S APCR 2018 0243

MATTHEW PETER DARGAN	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WHELAN, KYROU and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	14 June 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	20 June 2019
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSCA 137
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Walker; DPP v Dargan [2018] VCC 686 (Judge McInerney)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentencing — Armed robbery — Applicants co-offenders — Guilty pleas — Applicants sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of eight years and six months on charge of armed robbery— Applicant Walker also sentenced to three months’ imprisonment on summary offence to be served concurrently— Whether sentences manifestly excessive — Respondent conceded sentences manifestly excessive — Genuine remorse — Mental health considerations — Applicant Walker subjected to childhood sexual abuse — Applicant Dargan suffered traumatic and dysfunctional childhood — Applicant Dargan Aboriginal — Applications for leave to appeal granted — Appeals allowed — Appellants resentenced to eight years six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years on charge of armed robbery — Appellant Walker resentenced to one month’s imprisonment on summary offence to be served concurrently — Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571 applied; R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 240 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For Mr Walker	Mr J Fitzgerald	Victoria Legal Aid
For Mr Dargan	Mr P J Smallwood with Mr J Connolly	Ann Valos Criminal Law
For the Respondent	Mr P Bourke	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

WHELAN JA
KYROU JA
KAYE JA:

The applicants, Micah Walker (‘Walker’) and Matthew Dargan (‘Dargan’) each pleaded guilty before the County Court to one charge of armed robbery. In addition, Walker pleaded guilty to one charge of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail.

After pleas presented on their behalf, Walker and Dargan were each sentenced to twelve years’ imprisonment on the charge of armed robbery. In addition, Walker was sentenced to 3 months’ imprisonment for the summary offence of committing an indictable offence whilst on bail, that term to be served concurrently with the sentence imposed in respect of the armed robbery. The judge directed, in respect of each applicant, that they serve a minimum of eight years and six months’ imprisonment before they become eligible for parole.[1]
[1]DPP v Walker; DPP v Dargan [2018] VCC 686.

Walker and Dargan each seek leave to appeal against the sentences imposed on them on the sole ground that the sentences were manifestly excessive.

In its written case, the respondent accepted — correctly — that the sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment imposed on Walker for committing an indictable offence whilst on bail was manifestly excessive, since it equated to the maximum sentence prescribed for that offence. The respondent acknowledged that the sentence imposed on each applicant for the offence of committing an armed robbery was very stern, but contended that that sentence was not manifestly excessive…

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 Walker v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Micah Walker v The Queen [2019] VSCA 137
Case: [2019] VSCA 137
Decision Date: 20 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Walker and Dargan, were convicted for their involvement in an armed robbery and were sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment each, with a non-parole period of eight years and six months. Walker was also sentenced to three months’ imprisonment for a summary offence, to be served concurrently. The applicants sought leave to appeal against their sentences, arguing they were manifestly excessive, taking into consideration their guilty pleas, remorse, and personal circumstances. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the sentences were manifestly excessive and whether there were any mitigating factors that should have been taken into account. The court had to consider the principles set out in Bugmy v The Queen (2013) 249 CLR 571, which emphasise the importance of considering the offender's background, character, and prospects of rehabilitation in sentencing. The court also considered R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 240, which provides guidance on the application of the principle of parity in sentencing.

The High Court found that the sentences were indeed manifestly excessive, taking into account the applicants' guilty pleas, remorse, and personal circumstances. The Crown conceded that the sentences were manifestly excessive. The court found that Walker had shown genuine remorse and had been subjected to childhood sexual abuse, while Dargan had suffered a traumatic and dysfunctional childhood and was of Aboriginal descent. These factors were considered in determining the appropriate sentences. The appeals were allowed, and the applicants were resentenced to eight years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years on the charge of armed robbery. Walker was also resentenced to one month’s imprisonment on the summary offence, to be served concurrently.

The final orders of the court were that the appeals were allowed, and the applicants were resentenced as mentioned above. The court also noted that the principle of parity in sentencing should be applied to ensure that similarly situated offenders receive similar sentences, taking into account any mitigating factors. The decision highlights the importance of considering the individual circumstances of offenders in sentencing and the need to ensure that sentences are proportionate to the offence committed.

Orders