R v Bain-Singh - [2017] VSC 431

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0034

THE QUEEN

CHRISTIAN BAIN-SINGH

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 June 2017
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 July 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Bain-Singh
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 431

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Aggravated burglary – Intentionally causing serious injury – Pleas of guilty – Murder occurred 11 days after other offences – Both incidents involved knife attacks – Mid-range examples of murder and aggravated burglary – High-range example of intentionally causing serious injury – Serious violent offender – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Parsimony and totality – Total effective sentence of 29 years – Non-parole period of 22 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms A Hassan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms Nadia Kaddeche	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Christian Bain-Singh, you have pleaded guilty to aggravated burglary, intentionally causing serious injury and murder.

Circumstances of offending

On the 22 March 2014, at around 2.30am, you broke into Daniel Maynard’s home in Doveton. You were armed with a large knife, a Victorinox with a 12 inch blade.[1] Mr Maynard was asleep in bed with his then partner, Melissa Parrant. Mr Maynard’s son Nathan was also in the house, presumably asleep. You entered Mr Maynard’s bedroom. As you looked around for something to steal, Mr Maynard began to stir, at which point you started stabbing him. Mr Maynard woke and tried to defend himself with his bare hands as you continued stabbing him. Eventually you ran off, leaving the knife behind.
[1]Record of Interview with Christian Bain-Singh (15 June 2016), A991.

Mr Maynard was taken to hospital. The injuries he suffered included:

(a) A fractured left skull with associated mild hearing loss;

(b) A subdural haematoma[2] and a pneumocephalus;[3]

(c) Scalp lacerations and de-gloving;[4] and

(d) Multiple lacerations to the left ear, right forearm, right little finger, left hand (to the extent that it was partially amputated) and left knee. All lacerations required surgical intervention. The injuries to the right hand and left knee required him to wear a splint.[5]

[2]Blood on the brain.

[3] Presence of gas or air in the cranial cavity.

[4]Skin completely torn from underlying tissue, named by analogy to the process of removing a glove.

[5]Statement of Professor Mark Fitzgerald (4 October 2016).

Mr Maynard required multiple medications including pain-killers, antibiotics, anaesthetics, ear medication, drugs against blood clots, intravenous fluids, high flow oxygen and drugs to protect the stomach.

Mr Maynard remained in hospital until 31 March 2014 when he was discharged to undergo rehabilitation.

On 2 April 2014, just 11 days after the attack on Mr Maynard, you had a chance encounter with Ms Rani Featherston on a street in Eumemmerring in the early hours of the morning. You knew her: there had been some unpleasantness between the two of you on 2 November 2013, when she was carrying on…

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 Bain-Singh

Details

AGLC: R v Bain-Singh [2017] VSC 431
Case: [2017] VSC 431
Decision Date: 28 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bain-Singh involved the sentencing of the appellant for his involvement in a series of violent offences, including murder, aggravated burglary, and intentionally causing serious injury. The appellant had pleaded guilty to these offences and the case was heard in the Court of Appeal. The primary legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentencing for these serious offences, taking into account the principles of parity, totality, and the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation.

The court considered the nature and circumstances of the offences, noting that the murder occurred just 11 days after the other offences, and all incidents involved knife attacks. The court found that the offences were mid-range examples of murder and aggravated burglary, and a high-range example of intentionally causing serious injury. The appellant was deemed a serious violent offender with good prospects of rehabilitation. The court had to balance these factors with the principles of parity and totality, ensuring that the sentence reflected the seriousness of the offences while avoiding excessive punishment.

In determining the sentence, the court applied the principles of parity and totality, considering the mid-range and high-range classifications of the offences. The court also took into account the appellant's prospects of rehabilitation. The result was a total effective sentence of 29 years, with a non-parole period of 22 years. This sentence aimed to reflect the gravity of the offences while also considering the appellant's potential for rehabilitation.

The court's decision underscored the importance of balancing the principles of parity, totality, and rehabilitation in sentencing serious violent offenders. The final orders confirmed the total effective sentence of 29 years, with a non-parole period of 22 years.

Orders