DPP v Prasoeur - [2006] VSC 41

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1425 of 2005

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

PISEY PRASOEUR

---

JUDGE:	BELL J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	22-26, 29-31 August, 1, 5-6, 9, 12-17 September, 4, 25 November 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 February 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Prasoeur
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 41

---

Criminal Law – sentencing – murder of former lover – victim a young wife and mother – offender young (22) – careful premeditation – offender severely depressed - reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – offender falsely accused other person at trial – other person not a “victim” – other person could not make a “victim impact statement” – other person’s suffering not “direct result of the offence” – general and specific deterrence – Sentencing Act 1991 ss 3(1), 95A and 95B.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director	Mr D Trapnell and Mr S Reid	Mr S Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Dickinson	Balmer and Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Pisey Prasoeur you have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Aneta Pochopien on 14 April 2004.

The crime of murder is the most serious known to the law. The maximum penalty prescribed by the Parliament for this crime is life imprisonment, which is the heaviest maximum penalty prescribed for any crime. The deliberate taking of a human life is regarded by the courts as a matter of the utmost gravity.

The circumstances of the offence that I will shortly describe show that your actions were a serious example of this grave crime.

In 2003 you and Aneta Pochopien worked together on night shift at a factory in Mount Waverly. Over time you developed a relationship which became sexual.

In about August of that year, Ms Pochopien became pregnant to you. Without your knowledge or consent, she had an abortion on 19 September 2003, which was your birthday. On that day she sent you a text message by telephone to advise you of what she had done.

You were devastated by this news and felt that on each of your remaining birthdays you would be reminded of the abortion of the child that you wanted to be brought into the world.

You were obsessed with Ms Pochopien and bombarded her with attention. She grew tired of the relationship and eventually did not return your affections, especially after the abortion. She ended the relationship about three weeks after this event. You maintained strong feelings for her and could not get her out of your mind.

The abortion and the end of the relationship had a detrimental effect on your physical and emotional well-being. Your normally good work performance declined significantly, as did your standard of dress. By late 2003 and early 2004 you felt that, having lost Ms Pochopien, you had nothing to live for and would kill yourself. Your old friend, Conrad Tracey, found you to be depressed.…

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 Prasoeur

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Prasoeur [2006] VSC 41
Case: [2006] VSC 41
Decision Date: 17 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions v Prasoeur, the High Court was called upon to consider the appropriate sentence for a young man who had been convicted of the murder of his former lover. The deceased, a young wife and mother, was killed in a premeditated attack. The offender, aged 22, was suffering from severe depression at the time of the offence. Despite the offender's careful planning and premeditation, the court was required to consider the offender's prospects of rehabilitation in determining an appropriate sentence. The offender had falsely accused another individual at trial, who was not a victim of the offence and therefore could not make a victim impact statement.

The primary legal issues the court was required to address were the principles of sentencing in the context of the offender's age, mental health, and prospects of rehabilitation, as well as the principles of general and specific deterrence. The court had to consider the relevant provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991, including sections 3(1), 95A and 95B, which require the court to consider the principles of punishment, the nature and circumstances of the offence, and the character and antecedents of the offender. The court also had to consider the impact of the offender's false accusation on the other individual, and whether their suffering could be considered a direct result of the offence.

In its judgment, the court found that the offender's age and prospects of rehabilitation were significant mitigating factors. The court also found that the offender's severe depression at the time of the offence was a relevant consideration in determining an appropriate sentence. The court noted that the offender's false accusation of another individual did not constitute a victim impact statement, as the other individual was not a victim of the offence. The court found that the principles of general and specific deterrence were also relevant considerations in determining an appropriate sentence. Ultimately, the court determined that the offender's sentence should be commensurate with the principles of punishment and the circumstances of the offence.

The court ordered that the offender be sentenced to a term of imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 18 years. The court found that this sentence was appropriate given the offender's age, mental health, and prospects of rehabilitation, as well as the principles of general and specific deterrence. The court also noted that the sentence was commensurate with the nature and circumstances of the offence, and the character and antecedents of the offender.

Orders