Legal Research
Cases
Bedson v The Queen

Bedson v The Queen

Case [2013] VSCA 88 26 April 2013

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2011 0287

JOHN RUSSELL BEDSON
	Appellant
v
THE QUEEN
	Respondent

---

JUDGES	REDLICH, WEINBERG and COGHLAN JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	4 March 2013
DATE OF JUDGMENT	26 April 2013
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2013] VSCA 88	1^st Revision, 26 April 2013 -Catchwords
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Bedson & Anor [2011] VSC 101 (Curtain J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal against conviction — Appellant found guilty on one count of murder and one count of intentionally causing serious injury — Appellant fired shots from a car towards a group of rival motorcycle club members — One victim shot in forehead and killed — Bullet entered right buttock and thigh of second victim — Jury directions as to lesser alternative counts — Alternative of intentionally causing injury left to jury in respect of second victim — Whether trial judge erred in directions as to lesser alternative — Whether trial judge failed to inform jury that lesser alternative may be made out where appellant intends to cause serious injury but only injury results — Directions as to lesser offence did not affect jury’s consideration of primary offence — Little, if any, evidence suggesting lesser alternative rationally open — Appeal dismissed.

CRIMINAL LAW — Appeal against sentence — Total effective sentence of 23 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 18 years — Appellant’s brother, also present in car from which shots fired, resentenced on appeal to total effective sentence of eight years with non-parole period of five years — Appellant sentenced on basis of intent to cause really serious injury — Whether sentence manifestly excessive — Whether parity principle infringed by reason of sentence ultimately imposed on appellant’s brother — Firearm discharged in public street in context of dispute between motorcycle clubs — Importance of general deterrence and denunciation — Appellant’s brother dealt with for less serious offences — Harm inflicted by appellant out of all proportion to that intended by his brother — Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr P F Tehan QC	Ellinghaus & Lindner
For the Crown	Mr B F Kissane	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

REDLICH JA

WEINBERG JA
COGHLAN JA:

On 23 September 2010, the appellant, John Russell Bedson, was found guilty of one count of murder (count 1) and one count of intentionally causing serious injury (count 3). There was also a count of attempted murder on the presentment (count 2). The appellant was acquitted of that count.

On 23 March 2011, he was sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment on count 1, and seven years’ imprisonment on count 3. The trial judge ordered that three years of the sentence imposed on count 3 be served cumulatively upon the sentence imposed for murder. The total effective sentence was therefore one of 23 years’ imprisonment. A non-parole period of 18 years was fixed.

The appellant, by leave, now appeals against both conviction and sentence. His conviction ground is confined to count…

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 Bedson v The Queen

Details

AGLC: Bedson v The Queen [2013] VSCA 88
Case: [2013] VSCA 88
Decision Date: 26 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Bedson v The Queen, the appellant was convicted of one count of murder and one count of intentionally causing serious injury. The appellant had fired shots from a car towards a group of rival motorcycle club members, resulting in the death of one victim and serious injury to another. The appeal against conviction and sentence was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary legal issues revolved around the adequacy of jury directions concerning the lesser alternative counts and the proportionality of the sentence.

The court examined whether the trial judge had erred in providing directions about the lesser alternative offence of intentionally causing injury. Specifically, the court considered whether the judge failed to inform the jury that the lesser alternative could be made out if the appellant intended to cause serious injury but only injury resulted. The court concluded that the directions did not affect the jury’s consideration of the primary offence and found little, if any, evidence suggesting the lesser alternative was rationally open. Consequently, the appeal against conviction was dismissed.

Additionally, the court assessed whether the sentence imposed on the appellant was manifestly excessive. The appellant received a total effective sentence of 23 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 18 years. The appellant’s brother, who was also present in the car, was resentenced to a total effective sentence of eight years with a non-parole period of five years. The court considered the importance of general deterrence and denunciation in light of the firearm being discharged in a public street during a dispute between motorcycle clubs. The court concluded that the sentence was proportionate to the harm caused and did not infringe the parity principle. Therefore, the appeal against sentence was also dismissed.

Orders