DPP v Withers - [2007] VSC 411

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1469 of 2006

THE QUEEN

SHIRLEY JOSEPHINE WITHERS

---

JUDGE:	HARPER J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	26, 27, 30 APRIL, 1-4, 8-11, 14-18, 22-25, 28-31 MAY, 1, 4-5 JUNE 2007; 16 OCTOBER 2007 (Plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 OCTOBER 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	DPP v WITHERS
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 411

---

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – Murder – Victim attacked in his home, assaulted, bound and injected with heroin – No remorse – Prior convictions not of relevance – Twenty years’ imprisonment.

CRIMINAL LAW - Sentence – Two counts of incitement to murder – Attempt to have co-offenders killed – Seven years for each count – Six years of first count to be served cumulatively with sentence for murder – Total effective sentence of 26 years – Non parole period of 18 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Thomas SC	Angela Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	Mr J. Dickinson	Lethbridges

HIS HONOUR:

Shirley Withers, you have pleaded guilty to two counts of incitement to murder. The intended victims were the two people who accompanied you into the property at 3 Rose Craddock Place, Caulfield on the evening of 7 May 2005. The house was that of your domestic partner, Peter Shellard. You had a key. Your two companions that evening were Stan Callinicos and Sophia Stoupas. You had taken them with you because you needed their help. Your plan, as you revealed it to them, was to force your partner to experience bondage, and then compel him to sign documents transferring to you ownership of a property of which he was the registered proprietor but which was being used by you as your principal domestic residence.

According to Callinicos and Stoupas, the plan did not work as you envisaged. Stoupas hit Mr Shellard at least twice around the head with an unknown object. She admits that she did this without your knowledge or consent. Callinicos also hit your victim. He did so with his hand at least once in the area of the head. This too was outside any plan that you and he had discussed.

In other respects, however, the plan was put into effect. You did find Mr Shellard at home, as you hoped you would. He was asleep, on the bed, when you entered the bedroom. Again, this accords with the scheme you had in mind. Resistance from him was expected. Although he put up more of a struggle than was perhaps foreseen, the ropes that you and your companions had brought to the house were successful in subduing him. A further component of your plan was to inject Mr Shellard with a syringe containing heroin. It was the Crown case that you administered this yourself, shortly before Mr Shellard’s death. The evidence in support was in my opinion conclusive; and, by their verdict, the jury must have accepted this.

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 Withers

Details

AGLC: Director of Public Prosecutions v Withers [2007] VSC 411
Case: [2007] VSC 411
Decision Date: 19 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was a prosecution by the Director of Public Prosecutions against a defendant named Withers, who was found guilty of murder and two counts of incitement to murder. The court heard that Withers had brutally attacked a victim in their own home, subjecting them to assault, binding, and heroin injection, ultimately leading to the victim's death. The attack was premeditated, and Withers showed no remorse for their actions. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for these grave offences.

The legal issues before the court involved the severity and nature of the crimes committed, as well as the appropriate sentence for Withers. The court had to consider the premeditated nature of the murder, the lack of remorse displayed by Withers, and the fact that they had prior convictions, although these were not directly relevant to the current sentencing. Additionally, the court needed to address the two counts of incitement to murder, which involved Withers attempting to have their co-offenders killed.

In determining the sentence, the court focused on the heinous nature of the crime, the complete lack of remorse shown by Withers, and the fact that they had prior convictions, which, while not directly relevant, indicated a propensity for criminal behaviour. The court sentenced Withers to twenty years' imprisonment for the murder and seven years for each count of incitement to murder. The six years of the first incitement to murder count were to be served cumulatively with the sentence for murder, resulting in an effective total sentence of twenty-six years. The non-parole period for Withers was set at eighteen years. This comprehensive sentence reflects the gravity of the crimes committed and the need for public protection.

Orders