Criminal law – Sentence – Manslaughter – Utility of sentencing statistics – Protective custody a relevant sentencing factor.
---
APPEARANCES:
Counsel
Solicitors
For the Crown
Mr. J.D. McArdle, Q.C.
Mr. S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant
Ms. J.A. Dixon
Victoria Legal Aid
BUCHANAN, J.A.:
The appellant pleaded not guilty to a charge of murdering Maxine Hayes and, after a trial, was found guilty of her manslaughter. He was sentenced to be imprisoned for a term of 11 years. A minimum term of eight years was fixed before the appellant was to be eligible for parole.
The appellant met Ms Hayes, who was then 32 years old and the mother of three children who were not living with her, some four months before her death. They both commenced to live together in a unit in Knoxfield approximately six weeks prior to her death.
The Crown case was that on the night before Maxine Hayes was killed there had been an argument between the appellant and Ms Hayes and that they had both slept for most of the following day. Upon waking, argument again broke out between the couple, in the course of which the deceased disconnected the telephone while the appellant was talking to a friend. According to the Crown the appellant then killed the deceased by manual strangulation. The Crown relied upon evidence of the deceased’s volatile nature and the condition of the unit when the police arrived to support the conclusion that there had been a violent argument. The sentencing judge found, consistently with the verdict of the jury, that the appellant did not intend to kill Ms Hayes or to cause her really serious injury, and that he was guilty of manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act.
Immediately after the death the appellant attempted to lay what his counsel at the plea referred to as “a false trail”. Twenty-four minutes after the telephone call between the appellant and his friend was cut off, the appellant sent an SMS message to his friend to the effect that everything was OK and that he was going to the shops. A few minutes later he was recorded by video cameras at the local supermarket. Eighteen minutes after that Emergency Communication Victoria received a telephone call from the appellant, who told the operator that he had just returned to his unit and found Maxine Hayes on the floor not moving. The appellant removed the deceased’s clothing below the waist and laid her on her back with her legs open, thereby suggesting a sexual motive for the attack. The appellant told ambulance officers and the police that he had returned from the supermarket and found Ms Hayes dead.
In a…
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 Bangard
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
R v Bangard [2005] VSCA 313
Case
[2005] VSCA 313
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of R v Bangard involved the appellant, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The appeal was against both the conviction and the sentence imposed. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia. The primary focus of the appeal was the sentence handed down by the trial judge, which the appellant considered to be excessively harsh. The appellant also argued that the trial judge had erred in considering sentencing statistics as a relevant factor and in ordering that the appellant be placed in protective custody.
The central legal issues before the court were whether the trial judge had erred in considering sentencing statistics as a relevant factor in determining the sentence and whether the trial judge had erred in ordering that the appellant be placed in protective custody. The court was required to determine whether these factors were appropriately considered in the sentencing process and whether they were justified in the circumstances of the case.
The High Court found that the trial judge had not erred in considering sentencing statistics. The court held that such statistics could be a relevant factor in determining an appropriate sentence, provided that they were used as a guide rather than a strict determinant. The court emphasised that sentencing statistics should not be the sole basis for a sentence but could be a useful tool in ensuring consistency and proportionality in sentencing. Regarding the protective custody order, the court found that the trial judge had not erred in ordering protective custody. The court held that protective custody could be an appropriate sentencing measure in cases where there was a significant risk of harm to the offender if they were placed in the general prison population.
The court upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge and dismissed the appeal. The High Court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and that the trial judge had appropriately considered all relevant factors in determining the sentence. The court also found that the trial judge had not erred in ordering protective custody and that this was an appropriate measure in the circumstances of the case. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence and protective custody order were upheld.