1
Summary of Judgment
andrew william leevthe queen
[2018] VSCA 63
21 March 2018
The Court of Appeal constituted by a single judge of appeal today refused an application for leave to appeal against a sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years. That sentence was imposed on the applicant by a Supreme Court judge for a charge of manslaughter constituted by a single punch that caused the victim’s death.
The incident in which the fatal blow was inflicted occurred during an altercation involving patrons at the Windy Mile Hotel in Diamond Creek. The 19-year-old victim, Patrick Cronin, was attempting to remove a friend from the conflict and posed no threat to the applicant or anybody else when the applicant struck him.
The applicant sought leave to appeal against his sentence on 3 proposed grounds. First, that the sentencing judge erred in failing to assess the offending as falling in the ‘lowest possible category’ of seriousness. Second, that the sentencing judge erred in stating that specific deterrence was important in the applicant’s case. Third, that the sentence was manifestly excessive.
The judge of appeal held that none of the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable and that there was no reasonable prospect that the Court of Appeal would impose a less severe sentence than the sentence imposed by the sentencing judge.
The judge of appeal concluded that the sentencing judge had correctly assessed the applicant’s offending as falling within the ‘mid-range’ level of seriousness and that the sentence of 8 years was consistent with other sentences for manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act.
The judge of appeal stated that general deterrence was an important sentencing consideration in cases such as the present. This was because death caused by individuals — particularly young men affected by alcohol — punching defenceless victims to the head has become a serious problem in our community and the courts need to send a clear message that such offending will be met by lengthy periods of imprisonment.
---
NOTE: This summary is necessarily incomplete. It is not intended as a substitute for the Court’s reasons or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons. The only authoritative pronouncement of the Court’s reasons and conclusions is that contained in the published reasons for judgment.