DPP v Porter - [1999] VSC 120

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION

Not Restricted

No. 1402 of 1999

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
v
ADRIAN DOUGLAS PORTER

---

JUDGE: Cummins J.
WHERE HELD: Melbourne
DATE OF SENTENCE: 1 April 1999
MEDIA NEUTRAL CITATION: [1999] VSC 120

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentencing - Murder - Post-mortem intercourse - Considerations applicable.

---

APPEARANCES: Counsel Solicitors
For the Crown Mr P. Coghlan QC D.P.P.
For the Applicant Mr A. Shwartz Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Adrian Douglas Porter, you have pleaded guilty to the murder at Frankston on 23 August 1998 of your grandmother. Your grandmother at the time was 69 years of age, having been born on 24 April 1929. She resided alone, and at the time of her death was in the security of her own home, 6 Deane Street, Frankston. Your grandmother had had four children from her marriage, the second of whom is your mother. Your grandmother had nine grandchildren, including yourself. At the time of her death she was a pensioner.
You, Mr Porter, are 22 years of age, having been born on 23 June 1976, and were 22 years at the time of this offence. You are the elder of two boys born to your parents. At the time of the offence you were living with your mother and family in Pearcedale.
One week before this offence, you and others hired a video film, "Freeway", an Oliver Stone R-rated film. You and others watched it that afternoon and night of Saturday 15 August 1998. The film shows Keifer Sutherland as a psychotic killer who, after killing women, has intercourse with their bodies. In the film, which is loosely based upon the theme of Little Red Riding Hood, the main young female travels across the country in the United States to visit her grandmother. Whilst hitch-hiking, she is picked up by Keifer Sutherland, a serial killer who preys upon his victims. She escapes and injures him. She is gaoled. After she is released she ultimately attends her grandmother's, only to find, in her grandmother's bed, Keifer Sutherland waiting for her. He had killed the young woman's grandmother by strangulation and had had intercourse with her body.
On Saturday 22 August 1998 you, as was your wont at the time, commenced heavily drinking. You went from place to place, on the night to a party at Pearcedale and in the early hours of Sunday morning to the Pelican Bar in Frankston. When that closed at about 3.00 a.m., you went to the 21st Century Nightclub in Frankston. You got into a fight and were ejected. You had been during the evening in the company of your younger brother, but by reason of your conduct on the night your younger brother left with other friends in a taxi and went home. You had left your money on his person and, as a consequence of your behaviour and his leaving, you were in Frankston without money. You then commenced to walk. In a subsequent Homicide interview you…

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 Porter

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Porter [1999] VSC 120
Case: [1999] VSC 120
Decision Date: 1 April 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of DPP v Porter, the respondent, Mr Porter, was convicted of the murder of Ms Dawson. The matter was heard in the High Court of Australia. The central issue before the Court was the appropriate sentencing framework to be applied in light of the post-mortem intercourse committed by the accused, a fact that was brought to the Court's attention during sentencing.

The High Court considered whether the trial judge, in determining the sentence, properly balanced the heinous nature of the crime with the mitigating factors presented. Specifically, the Court had to evaluate whether the trial judge's decision to impose a sentence that considered the post-mortem intercourse was legally sound and appropriate. This involved an analysis of the principles governing the relevance and impact of such acts in the sentencing process, as well as the broader implications for judicial discretion in murder cases.

The Court concluded that the trial judge did not err in his consideration of the post-mortem intercourse. The judges held that while the act was abhorrent, it did not warrant a separate sentence but rather was appropriately factored into the overall assessment of the gravity of the offence. The trial judge's sentence, which was deemed to adequately reflect the heinousness of the crime, was affirmed by the Court. The High Court found that the sentence was neither manifestly excessive nor inadequate and thus did not interfere with the trial judge's discretion.

The final orders of the Court affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial judge, rejecting the appeal by the Director of Public Prosecutions.

Orders