R v Barrett - [2005] VSC 176

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1448 of 2004

THE QUEEN

ROBERT CLIFFORD BARRETT

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	31 January, 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, 21, 23 February and 15 April 2005.
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 May 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Barrett
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 176

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Murder – Serious psychiatric condition caused by drug use – ‘Sensible moderation’ of general deterrence – Greater danger to the community due to psychiatric condition – ‘Serious violent offender’ within the meaning of s 6B of the Sentencing Act 1991 – Protection of the community paramount – Sentence of 25 years – Non-parole period of 20 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Leckie SC with Mr J Kelly	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms C Randazzo SC	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Robert Clifford Barrett, on 23 February 2005 you were found guilty of the murder of Jennifer Lorraine Brodhurst. You pleaded not guilty and your trial occupied approximately three weeks. The victim, Jennifer Lorraine Brodhurst, had been your partner for approximately 12 years. At the time of the murder you were living in a home you shared with her in David Avenue, Cranbourne. You and Ms Brodhurst had a son, Bradley, who was then 9 years of age. He was not staying with the two of you at the relevant time.

Your relationship with Ms Brodhurst had been marked by violence on your part towards her, motivated or occasioned in large part by an attitude described by one of the psychiatrists who gave evidence in your trial as “morbid jealousy”. It was also this morbid jealousy that led you to attack a male friend, resulting in your being sentenced to a term of imprisonment in May 2001. Upon your release from prison on parole you resumed your relationship with the deceased, and resumed your violent attacks upon her. During the 12 months prior to the fatal attacks the deceased sought medical treatment as a result of injuries inflicted on her by you on numerous occasions. The deceased sought crisis accommodation during that 12 month period on nine separate occasions and at one point obtained an interim intervention order.

In September 2002 you were seen by a forensic psychiatrist, Dr Lester. In your trial, Dr Lester gave evidence that at that time he formed the view that you were suffering from morbid jealousy. You reported to him that you had severely assaulted Ms Brodhurst over ten years, at times severely enough to place her in hospital. You also reported to him that your jealousy increased with amphetamine use. He found that you had insight into the relationship between your amphetamine use and your violence towards your partner. He observed that although you had reached the point of having insight into this relationship you had not been willing or able to take…

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 Barrett

Details

AGLC: R v Barrett [2005] VSC 176
Case: [2005] VSC 176
Decision Date: 20 May 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Barrett involved the sentencing of the respondent, Barrett, for the crime of murder. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Barrett, who had committed the crime while suffering from a serious psychiatric condition exacerbated by drug use. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The legal issues before the court included the extent to which Barrett's psychiatric condition should mitigate his sentence, whether the general deterrence principle should be applied in a 'sensible moderation' manner given his condition, and whether he should be classified as a'serious violent offender' under section 6B of the Sentencing Act 1991. The court also had to consider the potential danger Barrett posed to the community due to his psychiatric condition and whether the protection of the community should be the paramount consideration in sentencing.

In delivering its judgment, the court considered the principles of general deterrence and specific deterrence, concluding that while these principles are important, they must be applied in a sensible moderation, taking into account the individual circumstances of the offender. The court found that Barrett's psychiatric condition did not absolve him of responsibility for his actions but did warrant consideration in determining the appropriate sentence. The court further held that despite Barrett's condition, he remained a serious threat to the community and thus qualified as a'serious violent offender' under the relevant statute. The court ultimately determined that a sentence of 25 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years was appropriate, emphasising the paramount importance of protecting the community from further harm.

Orders