Legal Research
Cases
Young v The Queen

Young v The Queen

Case [2015] VSCA 265 22 September 2015

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0257

RHYS YOUNG	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

S APCR 2014 0258
S APCR 2014 0287

MICHAEL DOBLE	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

S APCR 2014 0259

TRAVIS RANDALL	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

S APCR 2014 0260

MICHAEL STROJEK	Applicant
v
THE QUEEN	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	OSBORN, BEACH and McLEISH JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	7, 8 September 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	22 September 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 265
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Doble (Unreported, County Court of Victoria, Judge Chettle, 27 October 2014)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Applications for leave to appeal against conviction – Joint trial – Four accused (Y, D, R and S) – Kidnapping – False imprisonment – Theft of motor vehicle – Joint criminal enterprise – Applications for separate trials refused – Evidence admissible against one accused not admissible against other accused – Exercise of discretion – Discretion exercised correctly – Jury correctly directed – No miscarriage of justice – Application for leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Conviction – Application for leave to appeal against conviction – Evidence – Witnesses – Unreliable witness – Whether judge erred in failing to give a direction about the unreliability of the complainant – Good reasons for not giving jury warning that evidence may be unreliable – Evidence Act 2008, s 165 – No error in failing to warn jury that complainant’s evidence may be unreliable – Application for leave to appeal refused.

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Applications for leave to appeal against sentence – Y sentenced to total effective sentence of 7 years and 9 months with non-parole period of 5 years and 6 months – D sentenced to total effective sentence of 7 years and 6 months with non-parole period of 5 years and 3 months – R sentenced to total effective sentence of 8 years and 6 months with non-parole period of 6 years and 3 months – S sentenced to a total effective sentence of 7 years with a non-parole period of 4 years and 3 months – Whether sentences manifestly excessive – Totality – Parity – Comparison of roles – Comparison of personal circumstances – Sentences on Y, D and S for theft of motor vehicle ordered by sentencing judge to be served cumulatively on other sentences – Cumulation excessive – Applications of Y, D and S granted and appeals allowed for purpose of reducing order for cumulation in respect of theft of motor vehicle charges – Sentences not otherwise manifestly excessive – Parity principles not infringed – No error as to totality – Appeals otherwise dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicant, Young	Mr M D Stanton	Robert Stary Lawyers
For the Applicant, Doble	Mr S Johns with Ms A Cannon	Greg Thomas Barrister and Solicitor
For the Applicant, Randall	Mr D Cronin	Emma Turnbull Lawyers Pty Ltd
For the Applicant, Strojek	Mr A S Dickenson	Ann Valos Criminal Law
For…

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 Young v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Young v The Queen [2015] VSCA 265
Case: [2015] VSCA 265
Decision Date: 22 September 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants, Young, D, R, and S, appealed against their convictions and sentences in the High Court of Australia. They were each involved in a joint criminal enterprise that resulted in charges of kidnapping, false imprisonment, and theft of a motor vehicle. The applicants were jointly tried, and their applications for separate trials were denied. The court examined whether the discretion exercised in denying separate trials and the admissibility of evidence against each accused was correct, as well as whether there was a miscarriage of justice or errors in the directions given to the jury.

The court found that the trial judge exercised their discretion correctly in denying separate trials and admitting evidence against each accused, as there was no prejudice caused to any of the applicants. The court also held that the jury was correctly directed and that no miscarriage of justice occurred. Furthermore, the court ruled that the trial judge did not err in failing to warn the jury about the potential unreliability of the complainant's evidence, as there were good reasons for not doing so.

The applicants also appealed against their sentences. Young, D, and S argued that the cumulative sentences for theft of a motor vehicle were excessive, while R argued that their overall sentence was manifestly excessive. The High Court found that the sentences for Young, D, and R were not manifestly excessive and did not infringe upon the principles of parity. However, the court did find that the cumulation of sentences for theft of a motor vehicle for Young, D, and S was excessive. Consequently, the appeals of Young, D, and S were allowed for the purpose of reducing the order for cumulation in respect of the theft of motor vehicle charges, while the other appeals were dismissed.

In summary, the High Court of Australia found no errors in the trial judge's exercise of discretion or in the directions given to the jury, and refused the applications for leave to appeal against the convictions. The court also held that the sentences for Young, D, and R were not manifestly excessive, but did find the cumulation of sentences for theft of a motor vehicle for Young, D, and S to be excessive, allowing the appeals for the purpose of reducing the order for cumulation.

Orders