You are here:

Judgment summary - Tannous v The Queen [2017] VSCA 91

The Court of Appeal today published its reasons for resentencing Mr Charlie Tannous. Mr Tannous had pleaded guilty to multiple arson offences and to assaulting an emergency services worker. He was originally sentenced to seven years and six months’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years. 

It was conceded by the Crown on appeal that the sentencing judge failed to adequately take into account that Mr Tannous has an acquired brain injury and mental health issues. The Court observed that the principle of parsimony required that the period of incarceration should be the shortest period that would achieve the purpose for which the sentence was to be imposed. The Crown accepted that a different, but not necessarily lesser, sentence could be imposed by combining a term of imprisonment with a Community Correction Order (CCO).

The Court of Appeal resentenced Mr Tannous to four years’ imprisonment combined with a CCO of four years, to begin when he finishes his term of imprisonment.  The expert evidence established that both Mr Tannous and the community would benefit from him having a structured regime when he is released from prison.  The CCO has strict conditions, including that Mr Tannous must abstain from consuming drugs and alcohol, be supervised by a Community Correction Officer, and undergo mental health treatment.  The Court observed that it was regrettable that neither party drew the sentencing judge’s attention to the possibility of combining a term of imprisonment with a CCO. Parliament has provided a special sentencing structure for arson offences, which allow a CCO to be combined with a term of imprisonment of any length, rather than the usual limit of two years’ imprisonment. The Court stated that the structure provided by a CCO was desirable given the particular circumstances of this case.


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.

Download a Word or PDF version of this summary below.

More judgment summaries

New Window These link(s) will open in a new browser window.

Author: Supreme Court of Victoria
Publisher: Supreme Court of Victoria
Date of Publication: May 2017
Copyright: Supreme Court of Victoria, 2017


Get Adobe Reader Get Open Office You may need Adobe® Acrobat® Reader or Open Office to view the document(s) on this page. Get Adobe® Acrobat® Reader (External link) Get Open Office (External link)

Follow us on Twitter Find us on Facebook Watch us on Youtube