Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Harrison

DPP v Harrison

Case [2021] VSC 601 20 September 2021

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Criminal Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0238

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Crown
v
BRENDAN WAYNE HARRISON	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Jane Dixon J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	3 September 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 September 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Harrison
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 601

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty – Single stab wound to the chest – Plea of guilty – Aboriginal offender – Bugmy v the Queen – Sentenced to 9 years and 9 months imprisonment with a non-parole period of 6 years and 6 months – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 5, 6AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G Hayward	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C Mandy SC and Mr G Chisholm	Kurnai Legal

HER HONOUR:

Introduction

Brendan Wayne Harrison, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Dhieu Manoah.

Dhieu Manoah died as a result of being stabbed by you on 15 March 2020.

The maximum penalty for the offence of manslaughter is 20 years imprisonment.[1]
[1]The maximum penalty for manslaughter has since increased to 25 years. See Crimes Amendment (Manslaughter and Related Offences) Act 2020, s 3 (amending the Crimes Act 1958, s 5).

The Crown has provided the Court with an opening,[2] written submissions,[3] and victim impact statements from the family of Dhieu Manoah.[4] The Crown’s opening was read in open court at the commencement of your plea hearing. Counsel for the Crown, Mr Hayward, also read out a section from a statement of your sister, Jessica Harrison, with the agreement of your counsel, Mr Mandy SC. The part of that statement that was read aloud provided some additional information about your early life.[5]
[2]Summary of Prosecution Opening dated 21 May 2021 (‘Plea Opening’).
[3]Dated 1 September 2021 (‘Crown Written Submissions’).
[4]From the mother and two sisters of Dhieu Manoah.
[5]That statement is dated 7 May 2020 and formed part of the materials served pursuant to s 32 of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009; Transcript of Proceedings (DPP v Harrison, S ECR 2020 0238, Jane Dixon J, 3 September 2020 (‘Transcript’), 79-81.

Mr Mandy and Mr Chisolm put forward a plea on your behalf and also relied on written submissions[6] and the following materials:
[6]Defence Submissions on Plea dated 25 August 2021 (‘Defence Written Submissions’).

(a) Report of psychologist Megan Rodgers dated 16 June 2021 (‘the Rodgers report’);[7]
[7]‘Confidential psychological report’ of Megan Rodgers, Psychologist.

(b) Report of neuro-psychologist Dr Evrim March dated 1 August 2021 (‘the March report’);[8]
[8]‘Medico-legal Neuropsychology Assessment’ of Dr Evrim March, Clinical Neuropsychologist.

(c) Report of Bernard Healy, Clinical Psychologist dated 18 September 2008 (‘the Healy report’);

(d) Letter from Dr Katherine Honeyman, Clinical Psychologist, Caraniche Pty Ltd, Metropolitan Remand Centre dated 15 July 2021;

(e) Client Community Research Report submitted by Tessa Theocharous (‘community research report’); and

(f) Information about the Bert Williams centre submitted by Tessa…

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 Harrison

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Harrison [2021] VSC 601
Case: [2021] VSC 601
Decision Date: 20 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Harrison, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to nine years and nine months imprisonment with a non-parole period of six years and six months. The appeal was against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive, did not reflect the principle of proportionality, and failed to give appropriate weight to mitigating factors such as the appellant's guilty plea and the Aboriginality. The case raises questions about the application of sentencing principles and the impact of the offender's Aboriginality on the sentence.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, whether it properly balanced the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and retribution, and whether it appropriately accounted for the mitigating factors. The court had to determine if the sentence was proportionate to the crime and whether it sufficiently reflected the principles of sentencing as outlined in the Sentencing Act 1991. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the sentencing judge adequately considered the appellant's Aboriginality in line with the principles articulated in Bugmy v the Queen.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and appropriately balanced the relevant sentencing principles. The judges held that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crime and the need for denunciation and deterrence. The court also determined that the sentencing judge had appropriately considered the mitigating factors, including the appellant's guilty plea and his Aboriginality. The court noted that the non-parole period of six years and six months was reasonable, considering the nature of the offence and the need to protect the community. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

The court did not make any further orders beyond dismissing the appeal against sentence.

Orders