Cronin v Lee - [2019] VSC 509

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

S CI 2018 02538

MATTHEW CRONIN, ROBYN CRONIN, EMMA CRONIN & LUCAS CRONIN	Applicants
v
ANDREW WILLIAM LEE	Respondent

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	30 May 2019
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	1 August 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Cronin & Ors v Lee
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 509

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Applications for crimes compensation order pursuant to Sentencing Act s 85B – Parents and siblings of manslaughter victim – Pain and suffering – Sentencing Act s 85B.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants	Mr F Scully	Aitken Partners
For the Respondent	Ms S Keating	Garde-Wilson Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

These are four applications seeking compensation pursuant to s 85B of the Sentencing Act 1991 (‘Act’). The applicants are the father, mother, sister and brother of Patrick Cronin, who was killed by the respondent on 16 April 2016.

The applications, in each case, seek a compensation order comprised of amounts awarded in respect of all categories nominated in s 85B(2)(a)-(d) of the Act, namely: pain and suffering; expenses actually incurred for reasonable counselling and medical expenses; and other expenses actually and reasonably incurred.[1]
[1]Application SCI 2018 02538 filed 31 August 2018, [5].

However, no evidence was filed in support of any claim under s 85B(2)(b), (c) or (d). No submissions were addressed to these issues. Accordingly, I will determine the applications with reference to pain and suffering demonstrated by the applicants.[2]
[2]The written submissions of the applicants address issues relevant to s 85B(2)(a) and none other. The written submissions on behalf of the respondent, filed 25 October 2018, at [4] expressly proceeded on the basis that the applications were only for compensation for pain and suffering. Between that date and the date of the hearing on 30 May 2019, no further material relevant to s 85B(2)(b), (c) or (d) was filed by the applicants. Nor did the applicants make any oral submission that compensation should be awarded for any other matter.

Background

On 20 April 2016 the respondent, Andrew Lee, presented himself to Victoria Police. He was arrested and charged with the murder of Patrick Cronin. Mr Cronin had been killed by a punch to the head thrown by Mr Lee during the course of an affray at the Windy Mile Hotel in Diamond Creek on 16 April 2016.

On 20 June 2016 Emerton J granted Mr Lee bail, being satisfied that exceptional circumstances justified that order. Her Honour’s conclusion was based on her view of weakness in the prosecution case, namely proof of murderous intent at the time the fatal punch was thrown.

In May 2017, committal proceedings commenced. On the first day of that hearing, the prosecutor announced that the charge of murder would not proceed. At the conclusion of the committal, Mr Lee was committed for trial in this court on the charge of manslaughter.

Prior to the commencement of the trial before Lasry J on…

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 Cronin v Lee

Details

AGLC: Cronin v Lee [2019] VSC 509
Case: [2019] VSC 509
Decision Date: 1 August 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cronin v Lee involved an application for a crimes compensation order under the Sentencing Act, specifically section 85B. The applicants, the parents and siblings of a manslaughter victim, sought compensation for the pain and suffering they experienced as a result of the victim's death. The application was heard and determined by the relevant court, which had to assess the merits of the application and decide whether the applicants were eligible for compensation under the Act.

The legal issues before the court centred on the interpretation and application of section 85B of the Sentencing Act. The court had to consider whether the applicants, being the parents and siblings of the manslaughter victim, were eligible for compensation for the pain and suffering they experienced due to the victim's death. Additionally, the court had to examine the scope of section 85B and determine the extent of the compensation that could be awarded to the applicants.

In reaching its decision, the court examined the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act and the applicable case law. The court noted that section 85B of the Sentencing Act provides for compensation for victims of crime, as well as their family members, for the pain and suffering they experience as a result of the crime. The court held that the applicants, being the parents and siblings of the manslaughter victim, were eligible for compensation under section 85B of the Act. The court further determined the appropriate amount of compensation to be awarded to the applicants, taking into account the relevant factors set out in the Act.

The court's decision was that the applicants were eligible for compensation under section 85B of the Sentencing Act for the pain and suffering they experienced as a result of the manslaughter of their family member. The court awarded the applicants the appropriate amount of compensation, as determined by the court.

Orders