DPP v Jamieson - [2016] VSC 407

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0095

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

IAN FRANCIS JAMIESON

---

JUDGE:	HOLLINGWORTH J
WHERE HELD:	Bendigo (April), Melbourne (July)
DATE OF HEARING:	21 April, 20 July 2016
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 July 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Jamieson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 407

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Three victims – Longstanding animosity by offender towards neighbours – Victims killed at night, on own properties – First victim stabbed more than 25 times with hunting knife – Two subsequent killings premeditated – Two elderly victims shot multiple times from close range – Late pleas – No real remorse – No history of violence – Whether Verdins principles engaged – Sentenced on second and third charges as serious violent offender – Offender aged 65 at time of sentence – Whether non-parole period should be set – Sentenced to total effective sentence of imprisonment for life with non-parole period of 30 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A Tinney SC	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Desmond	Vines Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Ian Francis Jamieson, you have pleaded guilty to the murders on 22 October 2014 of your neighbours, Gregory Holmes, Peter Lockhart and Mary Lockhart.

You and your wife, Janice, had been living on a farm on Wedderburn-Logan Road, outside of Wedderburn, for many years.

Since 2006, the Lockharts had been living on a farm, just along and across the road from your farm. Peter Lockhart was 78, and Mary Lockhart was 75, at the time of their deaths. Mr Lockhart was semi-retired, but remained active around the farm.

Gregory Holmes was a former armourer in the Australian Army, who served in Iraq, East Timor and Afghanistan. He was discharged from the army for medical reasons in 2012. At the time of his death, he was 48.

In early 2014, Mr Holmes moved to a property on Mulga Ridge Road, Wedderburn, to be closer to Mary Lockhart, who was his mother. Your properties adjoined each other, and were separated by a typical rural wire fence. One of the means of access to the Holmes farm was via a road reserve, which ran along your boundary fence, on the Holmes side of the fence. The occupiers of the Holmes farm were allowed to use the road reserve, under the terms of a licence from the Department of Environment and Primary Industries.

Initially, relations between you and the Lockharts were cordial. However, in later years, relations had soured substantially, mainly as a result of Mr Lockhart’s use of the road reserve. He used it with the permission of the previous owners of the Holmes farm, when doing work on their farm, or getting water from one of their dams. You complained that use of the road reserve led to dust blowing onto your farm, dirtying your house and polluting your drinking water. The relationship went…

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 Jamieson

Details

AGLC: DPP v Jamieson [2016] VSC 407
Case: [2016] VSC 407
Decision Date: 22 July 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Jamieson involved a 65-year-old offender who killed three neighbours in a series of violent attacks. The offender had a history of animosity towards the victims and carried out the killings at night on the victims' own properties. The first victim was stabbed over 25 times with a hunting knife, while the subsequent two killings were premeditated, with the victims being shot multiple times from close range. The offender made late pleas and did not display any real remorse. Despite having no prior history of violence, the offender was sentenced as a serious violent offender under the Verdins principles. The court had to decide whether the principles were engaged and whether a non-parole period should be set.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the offender's actions warranted a sentence under the Verdins principles and whether a non-parole period should be imposed given the nature of the crimes. The Verdins principles are applied when a court considers a sentence for a serious violent offence, taking into account the circumstances of the offence, the offender, and the need to protect the community. The court also needed to consider the principles of justice and proportionality in determining an appropriate non-parole period.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the Verdins principles were indeed applicable due to the gravity of the crimes and the lack of remorse shown by the offender. The court determined that a non-parole period was necessary to adequately protect the community and ensure the offender serves a sufficient term in prison before being considered for parole. After weighing all relevant factors, the court sentenced the offender to a total effective sentence of imprisonment for life with a non-parole period of 30 years. This decision reflects the seriousness of the crimes and the need to balance justice for the victims with the principles of sentencing.

Orders