Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Bryan

DPP v Bryan

Case [2014] VSCA 54 3 April 2014

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2013 0200

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Appellant
	v
DAVID JOHN WALTER BRYAN	Respondent

---

JUDGES	NEAVE, WEINBERG and BEACH JJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	4 March 2014
DATE OF JUDGMENT	3 April 2014
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2014] VSCA 54
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	R v Bryan [2013] VSC 512

---

SENTENCING – Director’s appeal against sentence – One charge of manslaughter – Respondent sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months – Trial judge erred in failing to give appropriate weight to previous offending of a similar nature, gravity of the offence, general and specific deterrence and community protection – Sentence manifestly inadequate – Appeal allowed – Respondent resentenced to eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr G J C Silbert SC	C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr M G O’Connell SC	Robert Stary Lawyers

NEAVE JA
WEINBERG JA
BEACH JA:

The respondent, David Bryan, pleaded guilty, in the Supreme Court at Melbourne, to one charge of manslaughter. He was sentenced to a term of six years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months. The Director of Public Prosecutions has appealed against what he contends is the manifest inadequacy of that sentence.

By way of particulars, the Director submits that the head sentence and non‑parole period:

(a)failed to properly reflect the gravity of the offending;
(b)failed to sufficiently punish the offender to an extent which is just in all of the circumstances;
(c)failed to sufficiently manifest the denunciation by the court of the type of conduct in which the offender engaged;
(d)failed to give sufficient or any weight to the principle of general deterrence;
(e)failed to reflect the need to protect the community from the respondent;
(f)failed to have sufficient regard for the need to deter the respondent from committing offences of the same or a similar character;
(g)failed to have sufficient regard to the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence;
(h)failed to have sufficient regard to the impact of the offence upon the family of the deceased victim;
(i)failed to have sufficient regard to aggravating features of the offending, and in particular –
·the offence represents a serious example of gross violence committed in a public place;
·the offender was armed with a knife prior to the commission of the offence;
·the infliction of multiple stab wounds upon the deceased;
·the offender left the scene and took steps to conceal his involvement in the offence; and
·the offender has a prior conviction for a violent offence in a public place upon a stranger.

(j)gave too much weight to mitigating factors concerning the offender, in particular –
·his plea of guilty;
·his expression of remorse; and
·his prospects of rehabilitation and family support.

The Crown case

The Crown alleged that, in the early hours of 28 January 2012, the respondent was…

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 Bryan

Details

AGLC: DPP v Bryan [2014] VSCA 54
Case: [2014] VSCA 54
Decision Date: 3 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against the sentence imposed on Bryan, who was found guilty of one count of manslaughter. The matter was heard in the Court of Criminal Appeal. The trial judge had sentenced Bryan to six years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and six months. The Director contended that the trial judge erred by not adequately considering Bryan’s previous offending of a similar nature, the gravity of the offence, the need for general and specific deterrence, and community protection. The Director argued that the sentence was manifestly inadequate.

The court needed to determine whether the trial judge’s sentencing was flawed by not appropriately considering the mitigating and aggravating factors. It was essential to assess if the sentence was inadequate, given the nature of the offence and Bryan’s criminal history. The court also had to consider if the sentence appropriately balanced the objectives of punishment, deterrence, and community protection.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the trial judge did not give appropriate weight to Bryan’s previous offending, the gravity of the offence, general and specific deterrence, and community protection. The court held that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate, as it did not sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the crime and Bryan’s history of similar offending. The appeal was allowed, and Bryan was resentenced to eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months.

Orders