DPP v Trent - [2007] VSC 229

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT WARRNAMBOOL

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1531 of 2006

THE QUEEN

SHANE HARVEY TRENT

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Warrnambool
DATE OF HEARING:	16 May, 26 June 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 June 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Shane Harvey Trent
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 229

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act – Guilty plea

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Barry	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Lindner	Dwyer Robinson Pty Ltd

---

HIS HONOUR:

Shane Harvey Trent, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of James De Bono at Warrnambool on 27 November 2005.

On that day you visited Mr Wesley Potter, an acquaintance of yours, at his unit at 57 Grieve Road, Warrnambool. Mr De Bono was already at those premises for an unrelated reason. Shortly after your arrival, Mr De Bono accused you of selling drugs to his son. You denied that allegation. A verbal argument then developed between you and De Bono. Mr Potter asked you both to leave, and you both went outside the unit. There you both continued your argument. That argument became quite heated. You were both observed to be gesticulating angrily at each other and flailing your arms around. However, no physical contact occurred between the two of you. Your argument was observed by Mr De Bono’s wife, Ms Alana White, who was seated in De Bono’s car. On a number of occasions she called out to him to return to the car. At one stage, Mr De Bono moved in the direction of his car. In your record of interview you say that at that point you heard him ask Ms White for a gun or a knife. At the committal proceeding, Ms White denied that De Bono had made that comment to her. However, she did accept that the deceased may have asked her to give him something. I am satisfied on the evidence that at that point, De Bono did ask Ms White to give him something which he might use in the dispute between the two of you.

As a result, you returned to Mr Potter’s flat. You asked Potter for something to protect yourself. In his evidence at the committal, Potter stated that you said to him “I think he’s going to his car to get something.” Potter then pointed you to a knife which was hidden under a cushion in his lounge room suite. That knife was an old fishing knife. Its blade was 15 cm long. You took hold of the knife. The blade of the knife was wrapped in a brown vinyl pencil case secured with sticking tape, with the handle sticking out.

While you were in the unit, Mr De Bono was banging on the windows and door, kicking the door and calling for you to come outside. He called out “come outside and I will kill…

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 Trent

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Trent [2007] VSC 229
Case: [2007] VSC 229
Decision Date: 27 June 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of DPP v Trent was heard in the County Court of Victoria. The respondent, Trent, pleaded guilty to manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, resulting in the death of the victim. The matter involved a sentencing hearing, with the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) seeking a penalty for the offence. The primary legal issue was to determine an appropriate sentence for the respondent given his guilty plea and the circumstances surrounding the unlawful act.

The court was required to consider the principles of sentencing for manslaughter, taking into account the respondent's guilty plea, the nature of the unlawful act, and any mitigating or aggravating factors. The court also had to assess the impact of the offence on the victim's family and the community. The respondent's legal representative argued for a sentence that reflected the respondent's remorse and the absence of any prior criminal history. In contrast, the DPP emphasised the severity of the act and the need for general deterrence.

The court found that while the respondent's guilty plea was a mitigating factor, the nature of the unlawful act and the resulting death of the victim necessitated a substantial penalty. The court took into account the impact on the victim's family and the need to uphold community standards regarding such offences. Ultimately, the court determined that the appropriate sentence was one of imprisonment, balancing the mitigating factors with the need for punishment and deterrence. The respondent was sentenced to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the court's assessment of the offence's gravity and the mitigating circumstances.

Orders