DPP v Turner - [2017] VSC 358

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0015

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

JUSTIN GARRY TURNER

---

JUDGE:	Bell J
WHERE HELD:	Warrnambool
DATE OF HEARING:	28 April 2017
DATE OF SENTNECE:	23 June 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Turner
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 358

---

CRIMINAL LAW – sentencing – manslaughter by beating victim to death with punches and kicks – contravening a family violence intervention order intending to cause harm or fear for safety by assault, including hitting victim’s feet with hammer and dragging by her hair – domestic violence – male killing of female partner in own home – circumstances of offending involving uncontrolled anger, aggression and rage – heavy impact of crimes on victim’s three children, parents and others – plea of guilty and sincere remorse – severe example of crime of manslaughter – serious example of crime of contravening family violence protection order in specified manner – importance of denunciation and specific and general deterrence – application of sentencing principles in cases of domestic violence involving homicide – right of women to dignity, personal autonomy and physical and emotional integrity and to be free from fear of physical or mental harm – protective and educative purposes of the law and principles of sentencing – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 5, Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) ss 1, 123A(2), Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ss 5(1)(b)–(d) and 6AAA(2).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the prosecution	Mr R L Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions Victoria
For the defence	Mr J Williams	Farrelly Legal

HIS HONOUR:

Justin Garry Turner, you are charged with two offences:

·killing Kylie Jane Cay – the crime of manslaughter; and
·contravening a family violence intervention order intending to cause harm or fear for safety by assaulting Ms Cay, including hitting her with a hammer to the feet and dragging her by the hair.

You have pleaded guilty to these charges. The purpose of today’s hearing is for the court to pronounce sentence. The maximum penalty for the crime of manslaughter is imprisonment for 20 years[1] and for contravening a family violence intervention order in the specified manner it is imprisonment for 5 years.[2]

[1]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) s 5.

[2]Family Violence Protection Act 2008 (Vic) s 123A(2).

It is a sad occasion on which to be pronouncing sentence for these crimes. The first anniversary of Ms Cay’s death was only two days ago. She died on Tuesday, 21 June 2016, the day of the winter solstice, the shortest day of the year, the day on which we get the least light from the sun.

The circumstances in which you killed Ms Cay and breached the family violence intervention order involved the infliction upon her of domestic violence. Its nature is shocking to behold and deserving of the strongest condemnation by the court and the community. You were her domestic partner of some seven months. She met her violent death…

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 Turner

Details

AGLC: DPP v Turner [2017] VSC 358
Case: [2017] VSC 358
Decision Date: 23 June 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the Director of Public Prosecutions brought charges against Mr. Turner, who pleaded guilty to manslaughter and contravention of a family violence intervention order. Mr. Turner admitted to beating his partner to death with punches and kicks, and to assaulting her in a way that contravened the family violence intervention order, including using a hammer on her feet and dragging her by her hair. The case involved a severe instance of domestic violence leading to the victim's death, with significant impact on the victim's children, parents, and others. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence considering the nature of the crimes, the circumstances of the offending, and the principles of sentencing.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for manslaughter and contravention of a family violence intervention order. The court had to consider the principles of denunciation, general and specific deterrence, and the rights of the victim. The court also needed to assess the impact of the crimes on the victim's family and the community, as well as Mr. Turner's plea of guilty and his expression of remorse. The court was required to balance these factors with the severity of the crimes and the need for justice to be served.

The court found that the crimes were of a severe example of manslaughter and a serious example of contravening a family violence protection order. It acknowledged the importance of protecting the victim's rights to dignity, personal autonomy, and physical and emotional integrity. The court emphasised the need for denunciation and deterrence, and highlighted the protective and educative purposes of the law. In light of these considerations, the court sentenced Mr. Turner to a term of imprisonment, reflecting the gravity of his crimes and the need to uphold the law and protect the community.

The final orders included a sentence of imprisonment for Mr. Turner, reflecting the court's determination of the appropriate punishment for the crimes committed. The court's decision underscored the serious consequences of domestic violence and the importance of protecting victims and their families. The sentence also served as a deterrent to others who might commit similar crimes.

Orders