Legal Research
Cases
DPP v Maxfield

DPP v Maxfield

Case [2015] VSCA 95 12 May 2015

Criminal Liability

Sentencing

Intellectual disability

Post-traumatic stress disorder

Rehabilitation

Criminal Law

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCR 2014 0157

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS	Appellant
v
SHEREE MAXFIELD	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, WEINBERG and PRIEST JJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	6 November 2014 and 27 April 2015
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	12 May 2015
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSCA 95
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	DPP v Maxfield [2014] VCC 911 (Judge Maidment)

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Crown appeal — Intentionally cause serious injury — Multiple stab wounds — Permanent injury — Sentenced to 12 month community correction order (CCO) — Whether manifestly inadequate — Objective seriousness — Intellectual disability — Post-traumatic stress disorder — Community protection — Importance of rehabilitation and treatment — Resentenced to three year CCO — Work condition, treatment and rehabilitation conditions — Justice Plan condition — Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342 applied — Sentencing Act 1991 Part 3A, s 80.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr J Champion SC with Mr P Kidd SC and Mr C Carr	Ms V Anscombe, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Respondent	Ms H Fatouros with Mr J Cass and Ms D McCann	Victoria Legal Aid

MAXWELL P
WEINBERG JA
PRIEST JA:

Summary

In June 2012, the respondent, Ms Maxfield, stabbed her partner (‘SL’) four times: twice in the shoulder, once in the lower back and once in the chest. Both his gall bladder and appendix were removed and he suffered a collapsed lung.

In July 2013, Ms Maxfield pleaded guilty in the County Court to one count of intentionally causing serious injury (‘ICSI’). The sentencing hearing was adjourned after the sentencing judge was informed that Ms Maxfield suffered from an intellectual disability. Recognising the potential significance of that factor to the sentencing exercise,[1] his Honour ordered a psychological report from Forensicare.
[1]See Muldrock v The Queen (2011) 244 CLR 120 (‘Muldrock’); DPP v Patterson [2009] VSCA 222.

Ultimately, in June 2014, Ms Maxfield was sentenced to a 12 month Community Correction Order (‘CCO’). Conditions were attached requiring engagement with mental health treatment; compliance with a Justice Plan; and the supervision of a community corrections officer.

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against the sentence on the ground of manifest inadequacy. On 27 April, we allowed the appeal and resentenced Ms Maxfield to a three year CCO. Attached to the order are a community work condition, requiring 100 hours' work, and conditions requiring supervision, treatment (for mental health and drug abuse) and behaviour modification.[2] Ms Maxfield will also be required to participate in a Justice Plan formulated and implemented by the Department of Health and Human Services.[3]
[2]See Sentencing Act 1991 ss 48C, 48D, 48E.
[3]See [41] below.

These are our reasons for making those orders.

The offending

Ms Maxfield and SL were in a de facto relationship. They had known each other for about four years. They had three children, two being Ms Maxfield’s from a previous relationship and one being the couple’s child. At the time…

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 Maxfield

Details

AGLC: DPP v Maxfield [2015] VSCA 95
Case: [2015] VSCA 95
Decision Date: 12 May 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Director of Public Prosecutions sought an appeal against the sentence imposed on Maxfield for causing serious injury by stabbing a person multiple times, resulting in permanent injury. The County Court of Victoria sentenced Maxfield to a 12-month community correction order (CCO) with various conditions. The appeal focused on whether the original sentence was manifestly inadequate, considering the objective seriousness of the crime, Maxfield's intellectual disability, and his post-traumatic stress disorder. The Supreme Court of Victoria assessed the appeal, considering the importance of community protection, rehabilitation, and treatment, in accordance with the Sentencing Act 1991.

The legal issues before the court were whether the 12-month CCO was manifestly inadequate in the circumstances, and if the court should impose a more appropriate sentence. The court considered the principles of sentencing outlined in Boulton v The Queen [2014] VSCA 342, which emphasised the importance of tailoring the sentence to the offender's circumstances, promoting rehabilitation, and ensuring community protection. The court also considered the objective seriousness of the crime, Maxfield's intellectual disability, and his post-traumatic stress disorder.

The court found that the original sentence was manifestly inadequate, as it did not adequately address the objective seriousness of the crime, Maxfield's intellectual disability, and his post-traumatic stress disorder. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and treatment for Maxfield, and the need for a sentence that would provide community protection. In light of these considerations, the court resentenced Maxfield to a three-year CCO, with work condition, treatment, and rehabilitation conditions. Additionally, the court imposed a Justice Plan condition, requiring Maxfield to participate in a program designed to address his intellectual disability, post-traumatic stress disorder, and other relevant issues.

The final orders of the court were to set aside the original sentence and impose a three-year CCO, with work condition, treatment, and rehabilitation conditions, as well as a Justice Plan condition. The court emphasised the importance of tailoring the sentence to Maxfield's circumstances, promoting his rehabilitation, and ensuring community protection. The court also noted that the sentence should reflect the objective seriousness of the crime, taking into account Maxfield's intellectual disability and post-traumatic stress disorder.

Orders