R v Ball - [2020] VSC 623

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2020 0179

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
JAYDEN BALL	Accused

---

JUDGE:	TAYLOR J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 September 2020
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 September 2020
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Ball
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2020] VSC 623

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Intentionally causing injury – Accused drove co-accused to and from scene of assault – Accused knew a man was to be assaulted by at least three men – Accused did not participate in assault – Denunciation – General deterrence – Specific deterrence – Moderate prospects for rehabilitation – Crimes Act1958 ss 18 and 323(1)(b) – Sentence of two years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 15 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson QC with Ms B Goding	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Hannebery QC with Ms S Joosten	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service

HER HONOUR:

Jayden Ball, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of intentionally causing injury.

The maximum penalty for this crime is imprisonment for ten years.

Summary of Offending

On 2 December 2018 you were asked by your friend Alec Toby Harvey to drive him and Rikki Smith to a residential address in Lakes Entrance. You understood that their purpose in attending that address was to assault a man. You thought that man was called ‘Beau’ and the planned assault was in retaliation for his alleged bad treatment of a woman called ‘Bec’.

In fact, the victim of the assault was, and was always intended to be, Bradley John Lyons.

Harvey had been asked by an associate, Nicholas Stefani, to assist in the assault and restraint of Mr Lyons after telling him that Mr Lyons had been drugging his own wife, Jana Hooper, and sexually assaulting Hooper’s daughters. Harvey agreed to do so during a telephone call with Stefani at 11.49am on 2 December 2018. Harvey and Smith, who was with Harvey at the time of the telephone call, then together attended your house.

You drove Harvey and Smith in your car to the residential address of Mr Lyons, arriving at 2.11pm. They were greeted at the front gate by Stefani, who lived in a bungalow at the rear of the property. You departed the scene, understanding you would receive a telephone call from Harvey to collect him and Smith when the assault was over. Meanwhile, Harvey, Smith and Stefani went to the bungalow where a fourth man, Albert Thorn, was waiting. Together they planned the imminent assault.

Stefani provided Harvey and Smith with balaclavas. Harvey armed himself with a tyre lever. Stefani was armed with a sawn-off shot gun. Smith had a cigarette lighter to use as a knuckle. Thorn had duct tape to use as a restraint.

Together the four men walked to the backdoor of the house, through the kitchen and into the bedroom of Mr Lyons. Hooper, who was part of the plan,…

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 Ball

Details

AGLC: R v Ball [2020] VSC 623
Case: [2020] VSC 623
Decision Date: 28 September 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ball, the accused was convicted of being an accessory after the fact to intentionally causing injury, contrary to sections 18 and 323(1)(b) of the Crimes Act 1958. The accused drove the co-accused to and from the scene of the assault, aware that a man was to be assaulted by at least three men. Although the accused did not participate in the assault, the court was required to determine an appropriate sentence. The legal issues before the court were the principles of denunciation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and the accused's prospects for rehabilitation.

The court considered that the accused's role as a driver facilitated the commission of the crime, and while the accused did not physically participate in the assault, their knowledge and involvement were significant. The court emphasised the importance of denunciation, highlighting that such conduct could not be tolerated in society. General deterrence was also a critical factor, as was specific deterrence to prevent the accused from engaging in similar conduct in the future. The court assessed the accused's prospects for rehabilitation, finding them to be moderate. Balancing these considerations, the court imposed a sentence of two years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 15 months.

The accused was found guilty and sentenced to two years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 months. The court's decision reflects a careful balance of the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation, tailored to the specific circumstances of the accused's involvement in the crime. This outcome underscores the court's commitment to ensuring that justice is served while also considering the potential for rehabilitation of the offender.

Orders