DPP v McIntosh - [2004] VSC 75

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1480 of 2003

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

CHRISTOPHER GERARD McINTOSH

---

SENTENCE

---

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	20 November 2003, 18 December 2003, 23 February 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 March 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v McIntosh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 75

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Attempted murder – Armed robbery – Pleas of guilty – Considerations applicable.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Ms S.E. Pullen	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr I. Hayden	Victoria Legal Aid

----------------------------------------------------------

HIS HONOUR:

Mr McIntosh, you may be seated.

Mr McIntosh, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of attempted murder and to one count of armed robbery. The offences occurred on Wednesday, 21 August 2002 in broad daylight at commercial premises, Eagle Leather, situated at 58 Hoddle Street, Abbotsford. You were a regular customer of that business. In the course of an armed robbery but for no justifiable or excusable reason, you attempted to murder two men working there. They had done nothing but do their work and treat you properly. You repaid their civility by grievously attacking them with a hammer. You attacked them by repeatedly and forcefully striking each of them to the head with the hammer while each of them lay on the floor with their hands tied behind their backs. Each of your victims is lucky to be alive. You intended that each of them by your attack would die. When you attacked them each of them was bound and vulnerable. You left them for dead. These two offences are in the worst category of attempted murder.

You also committed an armed robbery upon the second of your victims. This was of money, bondage equipment and sexual aids – items sold by the business and stolen by you. You stole $982.00 in cash and some $15,000.00 worth of items from the premises. You were unemployed at the date of the offences and had been unemployed for some time.

Eagle Leather was a small business operating at 58 Hoddle Street, Abbotsford, specialising in the sale of leather and latex bondage and fetish wear. It also sold a variety of sexual aids and pornographic and bondage videos. It had been operating there and at a previous address for a number of years. You were a regular customer of the business, having attending it on some 30 previous occasions. You were a homosexual man heavily involved in bondage and discipline. At the date of these offences you were 34 years of age. The first victim, Mr David Oakley, aged 33 years, had worked in the business for merely six months. He was the personal assistant to the owner of the business, Mr Brian Mier. He had done nothing to justify, excuse or cause your attack upon him. He was simply performing, and performing properly, the lawful work he was employed to do.…

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 McIntosh

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v McIntosh [2004] VSC 75
Case: [2004] VSC 75
Decision Date: 16 March 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus McIntosh was heard before the Supreme Court of Queensland. The defendant, McIntosh, entered guilty pleas for the charges of attempted murder and armed robbery. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, considering the severity of the crimes and the defendant's guilty pleas.

The legal issues before the court involved assessing the appropriate sentencing for McIntosh, who had admitted to attempting to murder a victim during the course of an armed robbery. The court had to weigh various factors, including the nature and circumstances of the crimes, the defendant's criminal history, and any mitigating factors presented. Given the serious nature of the offences, the court considered it necessary to impose a sentence that would adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes and provide deterrence.

The Supreme Court of Queensland, in delivering its judgment, recognised the severe impact of the crimes on the victim and the community. The court took into account the defendant's guilty pleas, which resulted in a reduction in sentence. However, the court also highlighted the need for a sentence that would serve as a deterrent to others considering similar criminal activities. After considering all relevant factors, the court imposed a custodial sentence, balancing the need for punishment with the principles of justice and rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a custodial sentence for McIntosh, reflecting the gravity of the crimes committed, and providing for a period of parole ineligibility to ensure public safety.

Orders