DPP v Parsons - [2000] VSC 327

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL DIVISION	Not Restricted

No. 1555 of 1998

In the Matter of Applications pursuant to Section 86(1) Sentencing Act 1991
by Joanna Collins, Jessica Parsons and Michael Parsons:

Director of Public Prosecutions

Robert Clive Parsons

---

JUDGE:	Cummins J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 May 1999, 26 July, 2 and 3 August 2000
ATE OF JUDGMENT:	10 August 2000
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Robert Clive Parsons
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 327

---

Criminal law - Crimes compensation - Pain and suffering - S.86(1) Sentencing Act 1991 - Murder - Claims by children and sister of deceased - Not present at scene or physically injured - Considerations applicable.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Applicants	Mr C.H. Francis QC and Mr M. Houlihan	Daniel S. Slattery & Associates
For the Offender	Mr D. Perkins	Kuek & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

On 18 May 1999 the offender, Robert Clive Parsons, was convicted by a jury of the murder of Angela Elizabeth Parsons. The next day, 19 May 1999, the applicants, Joanna Clare Collins, who was a younger sister of the deceased, and Jessica Catherine Parsons and Michael Edward Parsons, the children of the deceased and of the offender, through senior counsel, made oral application pursuant to s.86(1) Sentencing Act 1991 for orders that the offender pay compensation for the pain and suffering caused to them by the offence of the murder of their sister and mother, respectively. It is those applications I now determine.

The child, Jessica, was born on 26 November 1984. The child, Michael, was born on 24 February 1988. At the time her father murdered her mother, Jessica was 13 years and 2 weeks of age. She is now 15 years and 8 months. Michael, at the time, was 9 years and 9 months. He is now 12 years and 6 months of age. Mrs Joanna Clare Collins is now 50 years of age, having been born on 29 March 1950. The offender, at the time he murdered the children's mother, was 54 years of age, having been born on 25 July 1943. He is now 57. The applications are brought by Mrs Collins on her own behalf and on behalf of Jessica and Michael. On 23 December 1997, the Family Court (Dandenong Registry) made an order that Mrs Collins be the next friend for the children Jessica and Michael. However, given their ages (now 15 and 12 years) and the fact that they have endured pain and suffering, in this judgment I shall refer to each of them as applicants.

The offender met Angela Graham, as then she was, in 1983 and they commenced living together. Ms Graham changed her name by deed poll to Parsons. The two children were born of the union, the daughter, as I say, in 1984 and the son in 1988. The offender was violent in the relationship, and the deceased and the offender separated in 1992.

After the separation, the offender was…

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 Parsons

Details

AGLC: DPP v Parsons [2000] VSC 327
Case: [2000] VSC 327
Decision Date: 10 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court involved the Director of Public Prosecutions and a defendant, Parsons, in a criminal matter where the defendant was convicted of murder. The issue before the court was the determination of compensation for pain and suffering under section 86(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, specifically in relation to claims by the children and the sister of the deceased who were not present at the scene of the crime nor physically injured. The court was required to consider the applicability of compensation in such circumstances.

The legal issues that the court had to address included the interpretation of section 86(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991, which outlines the circumstances under which compensation can be awarded for pain and suffering. The court needed to determine whether the children and the sister of the deceased could claim compensation despite not being physically present at the scene or injured. The court also had to consider the principles and precedents that guide such compensation claims, especially in relation to non-physical emotional harm.

The court reasoned that compensation for pain and suffering is not limited to physical injury or presence at the scene of the crime but can also encompass emotional harm suffered by those close to the deceased. The court held that the children and the sister of the deceased could claim compensation for the emotional distress and suffering they experienced due to the murder of their family member. The court emphasised that the suffering was significant and warranted compensation, as it was a direct result of the defendant's actions. The court's decision was grounded in the broader aim of the Sentencing Act to provide justice and support to those affected by crime.

The final orders of the court allowed the children and the sister of the deceased to claim compensation for pain and suffering under section 86(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991. The court provided guidance on the considerations to be taken into account when assessing such claims, ensuring that emotional suffering resulting from a close relationship with the deceased could be recognised and compensated.

Orders