DPP v Hayman - [2003] VSC 295

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1535 of 2002

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

KEVIN PETER HAYMAN

---

JUDGE:	CUMMINS J
WHERE HELD:	Wangaratta
DATES OF HEARING:	4, 6 August 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 August 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Hayman
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 295

---

Criminal law – Sentencing – Arson endangering life – Plea of guilty – Accused temporarily psychotic – Substantial stressors triggered by cannabis use – Accused of positive good character – Suspended sentence of imprisonment and community based order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr J Leckie S.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Croucher	Hale and Wakeling

HIS HONOUR:

You may be seated, Mr Hayman.

Mr Hayman, you have pleaded guilty to three counts of arson with intent to endanger life. Each of these offences carries a maximum penalty of 15 years' imprisonment. The lives you endangered were of your wife and your two children, boys then aged eight and five years.

The offences are particularly serious and had the potential for tragic results. Fortunately no physical harm was suffered by the victims, but each has suffered and continues to suffer substantial psychological and emotional harm.

Damage to the property at which you committed the offences is of the order of a little over $20,000.

For reasons which I shall state, despite the seriousness of the offences I have concluded that you should not be sentenced to immediate imprisonment but should be released upon terms, so that you continue to reside and work in the community. I consider the proper disposition of these matters is to sentence you to a suspended term of imprisonment for three years and also a community based order for two years. You will then be able to leave this Court.

I shall state the terms of that sentence and order at the end of the reasons I give this morning.

Mr Hayman, you are now 41 years of age, having been born on 21 March 1962. At the time of the offences, you were 40 years of age. The offences occurred at Mitta Mitta on 6 September 2002. You and your wife were married in 1991. There are two children of the marriage, both boys. You and your wife separated on 17 September 2001. A reconciliation was attempted between you both from Christmas 2001 to early January 2002, but was ineffectual. The children remained with their mother, but you had full access to them. No doubt both you and your wife felt emotionally burdened by the situation you were in.

You commenced heavily using cannabis, a drug which had deleterious consequences upon your psychic state.

You and your wife and children came up to a relative's property at Mitta Mitta, following Father's Day, Sunday, 1 September 2002, arriving there at 10.30 pm on Wednesday, 4 September. You were sleeping separately from your wife, who was sleeping in the…

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 Hayman

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Hayman [2003] VSC 295
Case: [2003] VSC 295
Decision Date: 7 August 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Hayman involved the accused, who had pleaded guilty to a charge of arson that endangered life. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the offence. Hayman had committed the crime while experiencing a temporary psychotic episode, which was precipitated by significant stressors exacerbated by cannabis use. Despite this, Hayman had a history of good character. The court was required to balance these mitigating factors against the gravity of the offence and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The primary legal issue before the court was to decide on an appropriate sentence that would adequately reflect the seriousness of the crime while also taking into account the unique circumstances surrounding Hayman’s mental state at the time of the offence. The court considered whether the mitigating factors, including Hayman's temporary psychosis and good character, warranted a departure from a purely punitive approach. The court also examined the principles of sentencing, particularly the objectives of denunciation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and protection of the community.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the significant mental health issues Hayman faced, which contributed to the commission of the offence. Despite the severity of the crime, the court recognised Hayman’s remorse, his history of good character, and the potential for rehabilitation. The court opted for a sentence that included a suspended term of imprisonment and a community-based order, aiming to address the offender's rehabilitation needs while also serving the interests of justice. The court concluded that this approach would effectively balance the need for punishment with the opportunity for Hayman to reintegrate into society as a law-abiding citizen.

The final orders of the court included a suspended sentence of imprisonment for a period of two years, to be served in the community under specific conditions, and a requirement for Hayman to participate in a rehabilitation program. Additionally, Hayman was mandated to engage with mental health services to address his ongoing mental health needs. The court's decision reflected a balanced approach, taking into account the mitigating factors while ensuring the sentence maintained its deterrent effect and protected the community.

Orders