Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Browning

DPP v Browning

Case [2016] VSCA 153 4 July 2016

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2015 0214

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Appellant
v
BRIAN ROBERT BROWNING	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	WEINBERG, WHELAN and KAYE JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	21 June 2016
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	4 July 2016
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSCA 153	1^st Revision: 5 July 2016 para [93]
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	R v Browning [2015] VSC 556 (Lasry J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Crown appeal – Sentence – Murder by husband of wife – Marriage breakdown –Victim asleep in own home – Multiple stab wounds to upper body – Respondent had consumed sleeping tablets containing doxylamine – Effect upon mental state – Adjustment disorder – Post-traumatic stress disorder – No history of violence – Remorse not ‘of significant level’ – Plea of not guilty – Sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment with 14 year non-parole period manifestly inadequate – Re-sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 16 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C Boyce SC	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr G A Georgiou SC with Mr P Doyle	James Dowsley & Associates

WEINBERG JA
WHELAN JA:

In the early hours of Thursday, 19 December 2013, the respondent, Brian Robert Browning, entered the bedroom normally occupied by one of his daughters at the home he shared with his wife of 23 years, Catherine Elizabeth Browning. Mrs Browning was asleep in that room.

The respondent, in a frenzied attack, stabbed his wife repeatedly to the chest, neck and throat. He inflicted some 15 separate stab wounds. It seems that she attempted to resist him, but to no avail. She died almost immediately from her injuries.

After a trial lasting some 13 days, the respondent was convicted of his wife’s murder. He was sentenced to a term of 18 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 14 years.

The Director of Public Prosecutions has appealed against that sentence, alleging that it is manifestly inadequate. As is invariably the case, the Director has provided detailed particulars of that ground.

Putting to one side the usual ‘boilerplate’ particulars, the Director contends that the sentencing judge failed to have sufficient regard to features of the offending that made this a particularly serious offence. The Director focussed, in particular, upon the fact that this was a brutal and wholly unprovoked attack upon a defenceless woman. It was said to involve a gross breach of trust. The murder itself was premeditated to some degree because the respondent had armed himself with a large knife that he had obtained from the kitchen shortly before carrying out the attack. The respondent chose to plead not guilty, as was his right. However, that meant that he could receive no benefit from the utilitarian value ordinarily associated with a plea of guilty. In addition, the sentencing judge was unpersuaded that his remorse was ‘of a significant level’.[1]
[1]R v Browning [2015] VSC 55, [30] (‘Reasons’).

In addition, the Director submitted…

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 DPP v Browning

Details

AGLC: DPP v Browning [2016] VSCA 153
Case: [2016] VSCA 153
Decision Date: 4 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) versus Browning was heard in the court of appeal. The respondent, Browning, was convicted of the murder of his wife, who was stabbed multiple times while asleep in her own home. The case involved the question of whether the original sentence of 18 years’ imprisonment with a 14-year non-parole period was appropriate given the circumstances of the offence. The respondent had taken sleeping tablets that affected his mental state, resulting in an adjustment disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, and had no history of violence. However, the court noted that the level of remorse shown by the respondent was not of a significant level.

The legal issues before the court were whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether the appropriate punishment should be increased. The court considered factors such as the brutality of the crime, the mental state of the respondent at the time of the offence, and the level of remorse shown. The court also noted that the respondent had pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder.

The court held that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate and that the appropriate punishment should be increased. The court found that the brutality of the crime and the lack of remorse shown by the respondent warranted a harsher sentence. The court re-sentenced the respondent to 21 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years. The court emphasised that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and protection of the community. The court also noted that the respondent’s mental state at the time of the offence was a mitigating factor, but it did not outweigh the severity of the crime.

The final orders of the court were that the respondent be re-sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 16 years. The court also noted that the respondent’s mental state at the time of the offence was a mitigating factor, but it did not outweigh the severity of the crime. The court emphasised that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and protection of the community.

Orders