Yeomans v The Queen - [2011] VSCA 277

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2010 0043
JAKE YEOMANS	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, ASHLEY JA and ROSS AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	4 August 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	13 September 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 277
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Director of Public Prosecutions (Vic) v Yeomans (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Gullaci, 18 February 2010)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Armed robbery – Aggravated burglary – Robbery – Theft – Young offender – Prior convictions – Judge found little prospect of rehabilitation – No error in treatment of youth and rehabilitation prospects – Sentence not manifestly excessive – Leave to appeal granted – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant	Mr P A S Skehan	Mr D McGregor
For the Respondent	Mr J D McArdle QC	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P:

I have had the advantage of reading in draft the reasons for judgment of Ross AJA. For the reasons his Honour gives, I too would dismiss the appeal.

ASHLEY JA:

I agree with Ross AJA that the applicant should have leave to appeal against sentence, but that the appeal should be dismissed. The only specific error for which appellant’s counsel contended was not established. The head term imposed was quite long for such a young man; but he had to be sentenced for an extensive number of discrete offences, and the head term was the product of individual sentences and orders for cumulation which were unremarkable – and in some instances merciful.

The sentencing judge allowed for a substantial potential period of parole. I think that it will be of critical importance, if the appellant is to have any chance of escaping from a pattern of repeat offending and gaol, that he have substantial assistance from the parole service in whatever period of parole is granted to him. Such assistance may provide the only antidote to the potentially corroding influence of years spent by a young man in an adult prison.

ROSS AJA:

On 9 February 2010 the applicant pleaded guilty before a County Court judge at Melbourne to 28 offences. The offences arose from 19 separate incidents between 15 April and 2 June of 2009, and included a number of burglaries, robberies and thefts.

The applicant’s plea was heard on 9 and 18 February 2010 and he was sentenced as follows:

Charge on Presentment Offence Maximum Sentence Cumulation

1 Robbery 15 years [Crimes Act1958, s75(2)] 18 months 4 months

2 Burglary with intent to steal 10 years [Crimes Act1958, s76(1)] 9 months 1 month

3 Theft 10 years [Crimes Act 1958, s72] 3 months 1 month

4 Theft 10 years [Crimes Act1958, s72] 3 months 1 month

5 Theft 10 years [Crimes Act1958, s72] 3 months 1 month

6 Burglary with intent to steal 10 years [Crimes Act1958, s76(1)] 9 months

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 Yeomans v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Yeomans v The Queen [2011] VSCA 277
Case: [2011] VSCA 277
Decision Date: 13 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Yeomans, was convicted of multiple offences including armed robbery, aggravated burglary, robbery, and theft. He was sentenced in the Supreme Court of Victoria and subsequently appealed to the High Court of Australia against his conviction and sentence. The central issue in this appeal was whether the trial judge erred in imposing a sentence that was manifestly excessive and whether there was an error in considering the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation, particularly given his status as a young offender with prior convictions. The appeal further questioned whether the sentence should have taken into account his youth and prior rehabilitation attempts more comprehensively.

The High Court examined the trial judge's sentencing process and the factors considered, including the nature and circumstances of the offences, the appellant's criminal history, and the judge's assessment of the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court found that the trial judge did not err in concluding that there was little prospect of the appellant's rehabilitation. The High Court further held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, taking into account the severity and circumstances of the crimes committed. The appeal was allowed solely to address the sentence, and the appeal against the conviction was dismissed as having no merit.

In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal against Yeomans' sentence. The court affirmed that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offences and that the trial judge did not err in considering the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation. The court's decision highlights the importance of balancing the severity of criminal conduct with the potential for rehabilitation, particularly in cases involving young offenders.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed.

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.

Charge on Presentment	Offence	Maximum	Sentence	Cumulation
1	Robbery	15 years [Crimes Act1958, s75(2)]	18 months	4 months
2	Burglary with intent to steal	10 years [Crimes Act1958, s76(1)]	9 months	1 month
3	Theft	10 years [Crimes Act 1958, s72]	3 months	1 month
4	Theft	10 years [Crimes Act1958, s72]	3 months	1 month
5	Theft	10 years [Crimes Act1958, s72]	3 months	1 month
6	Burglary with intent to steal	10 years [Crimes Act1958, s76(1)]	9 months