Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Edwards

DPP v Edwards

Case [2009] VSCA 232 9 October 2009

Sentencing

Defensive Homicide

Manifestly Inadequate Sentence

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 822 of 2008

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v
KEVIN ROY EDWARDS

---

JUDGES	BUCHANAN, NEAVE JJA and HANSEN AJA
WHERE HELD	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING	14 July 2009
DATE OF JUDGMENT	9 October 2009
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION	[2009] VSCA 232
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM	[2008] VSC 297 (Whelan J)

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Director’s appeal – Respondent pleaded guilty to defensive homicide – Whether sentence manifestly inadequate – Sentencing practice in defensive homicide cases – Difference to sentencing practice in manslaughter cases – Despite sentence being manifestly inadequate, Court exercised discretion not to intervene – Appeal dismissed.

---

Appearances:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr D A Dann	Randles, Cooper & Co Pty Ltd

BUCHANAN JA:

In my opinion the appeal should be dismissed for the reasons stated by Hansen AJA.

NEAVE:

I agree with Hansen JA that the sentence imposed did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the respondent’s offending. I also agree that, in the circumstances of this case the Court should exercise its discretion to decline to intervene and re-sentence the respondent.

HANSEN AJA:

On 28 May 2008 the trial of the respondent on one charge of murder of Barry Allan O’Neill on 4 June 2006 commenced. On the second day of the trial the Crown filed over a presentment which charged the respondent with defensive homicide contrary to s 9AD of the Crimes Act 1958, and to which the respondent pleaded guilty. Following a plea in mitigation, on 13 August 2008 the respondent was sentenced to 10 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years. A pre-sentence detention period of 10 days was declared.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appeals against that sentence relying on the single ground that the period of imprisonment and the non-parole period were manifestly inadequate in all the circumstances. Particulars to this ground allege that the learned judge failed to have sufficient regard to a number of relevant sentencing considerations.

In opposing the appeal the respondent submitted that no inadequacy in the sentence was demonstrated. Alternatively, if there be error and intervention arises for consideration, in all the circumstances the same or a similar sentence would be imposed. Accordingly, the appeal should be dismissed.

The offence of defensive homicide was introduced by the Crimes (Homicide) Act 2005. The relevant provisions are s 9AC and s 9AD of the Crimes Act1958. Section 9AD states that the offence of defensive homicide occurs where:

A person who, by his or her conduct, kills another person in circumstances that, but for section 9AC, would constitute murder, is guilty of an indictable offence (defensive homicide) … if he or she did not have reasonable grounds for the belief referred to in that section.

Section 9AC provides that:
A person is not guilty of murder if he or she carries out the conduct … while believing the conduct to be…

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 Edwards

Details

AGLC: DPP v Edwards [2009] VSCA 232
Case: [2009] VSCA 232
Decision Date: 9 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Edwards, the respondent pleaded guilty to a charge of defensive homicide. The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed the sentence imposed on the respondent, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was required to determine whether the sentence was manifestly inadequate and whether it appropriately reflected the principles of sentencing in defensive homicide cases.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on the respondent was manifestly inadequate, warranting intervention from the Court. The court also had to consider the appropriate principles of sentencing in cases of defensive homicide, and how these principles differed from those in manslaughter cases. The court examined the sentencing practices in similar cases and the appropriate discretion to be exercised by the courts in such circumstances.

The High Court concluded that while the sentence was manifestly inadequate, it exercised its discretion not to intervene. The court found that the sentence, although lenient, was not so inadequate as to justify appellate intervention. The court highlighted the importance of maintaining consistency in sentencing practice and recognised the trial judge's authority in determining an appropriate sentence. Given the unique circumstances of the case and the trial judge's assessment of the respondent's plea of guilty and mitigating factors, the Court found it was not appropriate to interfere with the sentence.

The High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the original sentence imposed by the trial judge. The Court emphasised the importance of adhering to established sentencing principles and the need for appellate courts to exercise restraint in intervening with trial judges' sentencing decisions, even when the sentence appears inadequate.

Orders