DPP v Graham - [2001] VSCA 221

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 193 of 2001

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
	v.
COLIN EARLE GRAHAM

---

JUDGES:	CHARLES, CALLAWAY and VINCENT, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	27 November 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 December 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 221

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Murder – Crown appeal – Sentence of 18 years' imprisonment with non-parole period of 13 years not manifestly inadequate.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C., D.P.P. Mr C.J. Ryan	K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Mr M.P. Taft	Victoria Legal Aid

CHARLES, J.A.:

I agree with Callaway, J.A.

CALLAWAY, J.A.:

The respondent, who is now aged 46, was found guilty in the Supreme Court of the murder of Hilary Anne Stevens. He had no previous convictions. After hearing a plea for leniency on his behalf, the learned trial judge sentenced the respondent to 18 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years and made a declaration regarding 482 days’ pre-sentence detention. The Director of Public Prosecutions appeals against the sentence on the ground that it was manifestly inadequate. In particular, in respect of both the head term and the non-parole period, it is said that his Honour failed adequately to reflect the gravity of the offence, both generally and in the instant case; that he failed to take into account, or sufficiently to take into account, general deterrence; and that he gave too much weight to mitigatory factors.

With a case like this, it is best to take the facts from the sentencing remarks. Addressing the respondent, the learned judge said:

“You met the deceased early in 1999. You were then 43 and she was 21. A close relationship developed. By September 1999 the interest of the deceased in you was waning. On 30 September you went out to dinner with the deceased. You then went on to play on the poker machines at a local hotel. You drove her home in your car. In the driver’s side pocket of that car you were accustomed to carrying a large knife. You parked your car opposite the house where she lived. You walked with her towards the house. You then had with you a knife. You went at the deceased with the knife. Only you could explain what precipitated you doing so and you have chosen not to give an explanation that accords with evidence from other sources on which I base my conclusions.
When you attacked Hilary Stevens with your knife she used her arms to try to ward off your blows. Several times you struck her with the knife on her arms and hands as she tried to protect herself. You then plunged the knife four times into her back. You ran to your car and drove quickly away from the scene. You took the murder weapon with you. You drove a few kilometres to your office; you then drove home. The police spoke to you.…

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 Graham

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Graham [2001] VSCA 221
Case: [2001] VSCA 221
Decision Date: 12 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) appealing against the sentence imposed on Graham for the murder of a person. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The DPP argued that the sentence of 18 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years was manifestly inadequate given the nature of the offence. The central legal issues revolved around the appropriateness of the sentence imposed by the trial judge and whether it was manifestly inadequate in light of the principles governing sentencing for murder.

The court considered the gravity of the offence, the culpability of the offender, and the need for deterrence and denunciation. The trial judge had taken into account various mitigating factors, including the offender's background and the circumstances surrounding the crime. The court examined whether the sentence imposed was outside the range of sentences that a reasonably informed and impartial sentencing judge could have imposed. The High Court found that the sentence was within the range of sentences that could be considered appropriate and was not manifestly inadequate. The court also noted the importance of allowing the trial judge's assessment of the particular circumstances of the case to stand, unless it was palpably wrong.

Based on the court's reasoning, the appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld. The High Court found that the trial judge's assessment of the appropriate sentence was not manifestly inadequate and that the sentence reflected a balanced consideration of all relevant factors. The final orders of the court confirmed the original sentence of 18 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 13 years.

Orders