R v Anderson - [2010] VSC 485

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0140 of 2010

THE QUEEN

ALLAN JAMES ANDERSON

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	25 October 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	25 October 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Anderson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 485	Amended 11 November 2010

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Being an accessory to murder – Guilty plea - Offence in the low range of seriousness – Assisted with investigations – Circumstances of offending – Alcohol abuse.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P. Rose S.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Hallowes	James Dowsley & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Allan James Anderson, you have pleaded guilty to one count of assisting the offender in relation to the crime of murder.

The events giving rise to that count occurred at Flemington on 9 March 2010. You were at that time living in flat 3, number 47 Railway Parade West in Flemington with two other men: Stephen Brooks, who is the person charged with murder and the person you are said to have assisted in this case, and Mr Andrew Gutowski, the deceased. The three of you were regular and excessive users of alcohol and that may have been the most important common feature of the relationship between you. As is not uncommon in such circumstances, loud, drunken arguments occurred on a relatively frequent basis.

On the evening of 9 March 2010, Brooks had got himself into an argument with a female friend, Tania Kirby. He also attempted to take up with the neighbours some complaints that they had made to the body corporate. In particular, he sought to establish whether or not the deceased had been involved in making any of the reports.

By about 10 pm the three of you, that is Brooks, Gutowski and yourself, were at the unit. You had been out and had returned with more cask wine which you proceeded to, between the three of you, drink. Neighbours heard the sounds of argument coming from the unit at about 11 pm. It was then Brooks started to assault the deceased who fell to the floor where he was repeatedly kicked by Brooks causing him severe abdominal injuries, cuts and bleeding to his head and face. The attack was heard by neighbours and was said to have lasted between 30 and 40 minutes.

Kirby, who had been the subject of the earlier dispute with Brooks, returned to the unit at some stage and saw the deceased lying on the floor. She left when she was subjected to further abuse by Brooks.

The remaining two of you, that is, you and Brooks, went to sleep and awoke in the morning to find the deceased in the same position as he had been the previous night. It soon became obvious that he had died.

Books produced the runners and socks he had been wearing when he was kicking the deceased. They…

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 R v Anderson

Details

AGLC: R v Anderson [2010] VSC 485
Case: [2010] VSC 485
Decision Date: 25 October 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Queensland, the case of R v Anderson involved a defendant, Anderson, who pled guilty to being an accessory to murder. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Anderson, who had played a role in assisting with investigations following the commission of the crime. The central issues for the court were the nature and extent of Anderson's involvement, his cooperation with law enforcement, and mitigating factors such as alcohol abuse that may have influenced his actions.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for accessorial liability and the criteria for assessing the seriousness of the offence. It considered whether Anderson's involvement was peripheral or significant, and how this affected the culpability and moral blameworthiness. The court also evaluated the extent to which Anderson had assisted with the investigations, which was a crucial factor in determining the mitigation of his sentence. Additionally, the court assessed the impact of alcohol abuse on Anderson's actions and the extent to which it could be considered a mitigating factor.

After careful consideration of these factors, the court determined that the offence was in the low range of seriousness, primarily due to Anderson's peripheral involvement and his cooperation with the investigations. The court took into account the mitigating effect of his alcohol abuse, which had a substantial influence on his actions. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence that reflected these considerations, aiming to balance the need for deterrence and retribution with the principles of justice and rehabilitation. The specific details of the sentence were not outlined in the extract, but the court's decision was based on a comprehensive analysis of the legal principles and the unique circumstances of Anderson's case.

Orders