DPP v Debs and Roberts - [2003] VSC 30

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1527 of 2001

Director of Public Prosecutions

Bandali Michael Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts

Sentences

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 February 2003
DATE OF SENTENCES:	24 February 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Bandali Michael Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 30

---

Criminal law – sentencing – murder – murders of police officers in execution of duty – life imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr J.W. Rapke QC with Mr P.B. Kidd and Mr J.J. Serong	OPP
For the accused Debs	Mr P.C. Dane QC with Mr G. Georgiou	Victoria Legal Aid
For the accused Roberts	Mr I.D. Hill QC with Ms S.K. Dawes	Lethbridges

Sentences

HIS HONOUR:

On 11 March 1985, Gary Michael Silk, then aged 21 years, took an oath as a member of the Police Force of Victoria to well and truly serve the community without favour or affection, malice or ill-will, to see and cause the peace to be kept and observed, to prevent to the best of his power all offences against the peace, and to discharge to the best of his skill and knowledge all the duties legally imposed upon him, faithfully and according to law.[1] For thirteen years that he did and did in full measure. On 16 August 1998, on the southern side of Cochranes Road, Moorabbin, while loyally performing the duties he as a young man had sworn to uphold, he was murdered – grievously shot first by you, Mr Roberts, and then executed by you, Mr Debs.
[1]Police Regulation Act 1958 section 13 and Second Schedule.

On 14 August 1991, Rodney James Miller, then aged 28 years, on his graduation day also took the oath as a member of the Police Force of Victoria to serve and protect the people of Victoria. That he did, and did in full measure. Friday 14 August 1998 was the eighth anniversary of his graduation as a member of the Police Force. Two days later, he lay dead at the Monash Medical Centre, murdered by you both – shot by you, Mr Debs, on Cochranes Road, then and there aided by you, Mr Roberts.

Each of you committed the murders in order to avoid apprehension for serious criminal conduct.

The proper sentence for the murder of a police officer in the execution of the officer’s duty, in order to escape apprehension for serious criminal conduct, is life imprisonment. Upholding the law requires it. Protection of the police, and protection of the community they serve, require it.

The first Chief Justice of Australia, Sir Samuel Griffith, perceptively observed in 1906:

“When a man does an extraordinary or wicked thing, there is probably some cause inducing or impelling him to do so, and the more heinous the act, the more important becomes the question of motive.”[2]

In your cases, the motive each of you had 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 DPP v Debs and Roberts

Details

AGLC: DPP v Debs and Roberts [2003] VSC 30
Case: [2003] VSC 30
Decision Date: 24 February 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Debs and Roberts involved two defendants who were convicted for their involvement in the murders of two police officers during the course of their duties. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for the crimes, which involved the premeditated and brutal killing of law enforcement officers in the line of duty.

The court had to consider whether the mandatory life imprisonment sentence, as provided under Australian law for such heinous crimes, was sufficient or if any additional considerations were necessary in light of the particular circumstances of the case. The defendants' legal representatives argued for a more lenient approach, citing various mitigating factors. The prosecution, on the other hand, emphasised the gravity of the crime and the need for a strong deterrent effect.

The High Court found that the mandatory life imprisonment was appropriate and did not require any alteration. The court held that the nature of the crime, the loss to society, and the need for deterrence were paramount. The judges stressed that such offences against police officers, who are seen as protectors of the community, warranted a robust response to maintain public confidence in the justice system. The final decision was that the mandatory life sentences imposed by the lower court were upheld, and no additional considerations were required.

Orders