DPP v Walker - [2018] VSC 83

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CI 2017 0210

DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS

ELISE WALKER

---

JUDGE:	HOLLINGWORTH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne, Bendigo
DATE OF HEARING:	1 and 23 March 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 March 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v Walker
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 83

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Offender stabbed domestic partner – Background of family violence – Deceased attempted to prevent offender from leaving house – Offender inflicted single stab wound in dangerous action – Imprisonment more burdensome due to PTSD and major depressive disorder – Plea of guilty – Genuine remorse – Sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 4 years.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel

Solicitors

For the DPP

Mr D Brown
Ms J Warren

Office of Public Prosecutions

For Ms Walker

Mr A Lewis

Ms S Wendlandt

Stary Norton Halphen

HER HONOUR:

Elise Walker, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of your partner, Matthew Johnston, on 24 December 2016.

The two of you began a relationship in late 2013. The relationship was a turbulent one, with times of happiness interspersed by frequent arguments, occasional physical violence, and the regular use of cannabis and methylamphetamine (“ice”).

In 2014, you and your two young children moved in to live with Mr Johnston at his house in Pakenham. Due to financial difficulties, the house had to be sold the following year, and you and Mr Johnston became homeless for a while. Your children went to live with their father at that time.

You and Mr Johnston relocated to the Bendigo area at the end of 2015, initially living with your mother. Your children came back to live with you and Mr Johnston for a short period in 2016. After your children returned to live with their father, he obtained an intervention order, which prevented you from having contact with them, in order to protect them from witnessing the family violence between you and Mr Johnston.

In September 2016, an incident occurred which led to Mr Johnston being remanded in custody for about one month. After drinking a large amount of alcohol, he had been driving so erratically that you feared for your safety and tried to stop the car. When the police attended, he was charged with a number of driving and property offences, as well as resisting police. You later told some family members, and your psychologist, that on that occasion he had picked up a brick or a stone and threatened to cave your head in with it. You did not tell the police of that incident, as you loved Mr Johnston and did not want him to get into trouble over it.

After being evicted from a rental property for failing to pay rent, the two of you spent some months “couch surfing” at the homes of friends. At the time of the offence, you were staying with a friend at a DHHS property in…

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 Walker

Details

AGLC: DPP v Walker [2018] VSC 83
Case: [2018] VSC 83
Decision Date: 28 March 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of the Director of Public Prosecutions versus Walker was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, Walker, was charged with manslaughter following the stabbing death of his domestic partner. The incident occurred in a context of ongoing family violence, where the deceased attempted to prevent Walker from leaving the house. Walker inflicted a single stab wound that resulted in the death of his partner. The defendant had a history of post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive disorder, which were considered in the sentencing process.

The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Walker, considering the circumstances of the crime, the defendant's mental health conditions, and the impact of his guilty plea and expressions of remorse. The central legal issue was the appropriate balance between punishment and rehabilitation, given the mitigating factors of Walker's mental health and his remorse. The court also had to consider the dangerous nature of the act and the need for general deterrence.

The Supreme Court found that the circumstances of the crime warranted a significant custodial sentence, reflecting the gravity of the offence and the need for community protection. However, the court also recognised the mitigating factors of Walker’s mental health conditions and his genuine remorse. After weighing these factors, the court sentenced Walker to a total of seven years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years. This sentence aimed to provide justice for the deceased, address the community’s need for safety, and offer Walker an opportunity for rehabilitation.

Orders