Bedson v The Queen - [2011] VSCA 379

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2011 0071

DEREK SCOTT BEDSON

THE QUEEN

---

JUDGES:	BUCHANAN, HARPER and HANSEN JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	17 November 2011
DATE OF JUDGMENT/ORDER:	17 November 2011
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSCA 379
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	[2011] VSC 101 (Curtain J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter and reckless conduct endangering life – Offender’s intention to shoot at a motorcycle clubhouse – Co-offender deliberately shot persons outside the clubhouse – Sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of 8 years’ imprisonment manifestly excessive.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr C B Boyce	Ellinghaus & Lindner
For the Respondent	Mr B F Kissane	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

BUCHANAN JA:

The appellant is the half‑brother of John Bedson, who was a member of a group affiliated with the Rebels motorcycle club. At the Geelong Cup races, an altercation took place between members of the group and members of the Bandidos motorcycle club. The appellant was told of the fight and became angry that a member of his brother’s group had been assaulted and arrested by the police. The brothers and other members of the Rebels club drove to the Bandidos clubhouse. The appellant brought with him a .22 semi‑automatic rifle. The appellant and the driver were in the front seat of the appellant’s vehicle, a dual cab utility. John Bedson was in the back seat.

The utility stopped in the street near the Bandidos clubhouse. John Bedson aimed the rifle at a group standing outside the clubhouse. He shot two of them. One of the Bandidos was shot in the head and died early the next day. The other victim was shot in the thigh and spent two days in hospital.

After a trial, John Bedson was found guilty of murder and intentionally causing serious injury. The appellant pleaded guilty to a presentment containing a count of manslaughter and a count of reckless conduct endangering life.

At his trial, John Bedson gave evidence that he knew his brother wanted to shoot up the clubhouse and knew that he was armed. He said that he resolved to do the shooting in order to protect his brother. John Bedson admitted firing the shots and said that his actions were in defence of himself and others in the utility, as he knew that the deceased had a reputation as a person who carried a knife and a gun.

The shooting was captured on CCTV footage. The sentencing judge said that the film showed the deceased walking out of the clubhouse, standing and reaching down into his trousers. The Crown contended that that was either to tuck in his shirt or do up his fly. At that point he was shot and fell to the ground.

The sentencing judge described the appellant’s offending in the following terms:

It would appear that the conduct contemplated by each of you up until the point the firearm was discharged…

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 [2011] VSCA 379
Case: [2011] VSCA 379
Decision Date: 17 November 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Bedson v The Queen involved the defendant, Bedson, who was charged with manslaughter and reckless conduct endangering life following an incident where he and a co-offender shot at a motorcycle clubhouse. The co-offender shot and killed two persons outside the clubhouse. Bedson was convicted and sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of 8 years. The High Court of Australia was asked to review the sentence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed by the lower court was manifestly excessive. The court had to consider the objective seriousness of the crime, Bedson’s role in the incident, and the appropriate punishment. The court also had to balance the need for punishment with the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The High Court found that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The court noted that while the crime was serious, Bedson’s role was not as significant as that of the co-offender who actually killed the victims. The court held that the sentence did not sufficiently reflect the difference in the roles of the offenders. Additionally, the court considered the circumstances of Bedson’s involvement, including his lack of prior criminal history and the fact that he did not intend to kill anyone. The court concluded that a sentence of 12 years’ imprisonment with a minimum term of 8 years did not appropriately reflect these mitigating factors.

The High Court ordered that the sentence be quashed and remitted the matter to the lower court for re-sentencing. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences reflect the individual circumstances of the offender and the nature of their involvement in the crime.

Orders