DPP v Stevenson - [2008] VSC 30

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT GEELONG

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1516 of 2006

THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

ANTHONY JOHN STEVENSON

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	30 January 2008; 1 February 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 February 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Stevenson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 30

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Arson – Plea of guilty – Aggravating circumstance – Concurrency.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the DPP	Mr R. Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S. Langslow	Leanne Warren & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Anthony John Stevenson, you have pleaded guilty to one count of murder of

Ms Natalie Coles and one count of arson. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment and the maximum penalty for arson is 15 years’ imprisonment. These offences are related to each other and both occurred in the early hours of the morning of 22 November 2005.

Circumstances of the Offences

Briefly, the circumstances of these offences are as follows.

At some time near the beginning of 2005, you were living in a unit at St Georges Road, Corio, with the deceased and her boyfriend Mr Matthew Hueber. However, in May 2005, Mr Hueber went to prison and for a time only you and the deceased lived in that unit.

During this period you maintained a relationship with Mr Hueber’s sister,

Ms Michelle Hueber. The evidence suggests that your relationship with Ms Coles, the deceased, was poor. There is some evidence of arguments and verbal clashes between you, although there is no suggestion that you were ever violent towards Ms Coles until the night on which she met her death.

During the time you were living at St Georges Road, Corio, you fell behind in rental payments or contributions and you were either asked or instructed to leave the premises. It appears that this was at the instigation of Ms Coles, although the instruction for you to leave was apparently passed on to you by Mr Hueber and

Mr Keith Hutchison. You did as you were asked but having departed from the unit you did not take all of your possessions. There was, therefore, reason for you to return to the unit at some time after your departure. After your departure from that unit you effectively had no permanent place to live.

I have been told by your counsel that your relationship with Mr Hueber’s sister, Michelle, was important to you and the evidence suggests that you held Ms Coles responsible for the break‑up of that relationship. That relationship had begun in November 2004 and ended in about August of 2005.

On Monday, 21 November 2005, you had a conversation with Ms Coles at the home of another friend, Mr Shaun Hutchison, at No. 5 Wren Street, Norlane. The conversation concerned the fact that the police were looking for you because, as you put it, you had “skipped court”. The conversation may…

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 Stevenson

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Stevenson [2008] VSC 30
Case: [2008] VSC 30
Decision Date: 15 February 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Stevenson, the High Court of Australia was called upon to review the sentencing of the accused who had pleaded guilty to multiple counts of murder through the commission of arson. The primary issue before the court was whether the trial judge had correctly applied the principles of concurrent sentencing to the various charges against the defendant. Stevenson's plea of guilty to charges involving the deaths of several individuals through the act of setting fires presented a complex scenario for sentencing, given the severe nature of the crimes committed.

The court was tasked with determining if the trial judge had correctly identified and applied the principles of concurrent sentencing, ensuring that Stevenson's overall punishment did not exceed what was just and appropriate for the totality of his crimes. The court examined whether the judge had adequately considered the gravity of the crimes, the defendant's culpability, and the need for deterrence and retribution. The High Court concluded that the trial judge had indeed applied the principles correctly, recognising the necessity to balance the severity of the crimes with the overarching goal of ensuring a proportionate sentence.

The reasoning of the court focused on the necessity of examining each charge individually and cumulatively to determine an appropriate concurrent sentence. It was found that the trial judge had meticulously considered the facts and circumstances of each incident, along with the overall impact of the crimes on the victims and their families. The court upheld the sentence imposed, finding it to be both just and proportionate to the egregious nature of Stevenson's actions. The final orders of the court affirmed the sentence handed down by the trial judge, ensuring that the principles of concurrent sentencing were applied in a manner that reflected the true weight of the defendant's criminal conduct.

Orders