R v Baxter - [2009] VSC 178

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1411 of 2008

THE QUEEN

JASON ANDREW BAXTER

---

JUDGE:	KAYE J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 May 2009
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 May 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Baxter
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 178

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Plea of guilty – Defensive homicide.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Kidd	The Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Morrissey	Ronald V Tait

HIS HONOUR:

Jason Andrew Baxter. You have pleaded guilty to one count of the defensive homicide of Graeme John Falzon on 18 December 2007. You were originally charged with the murder of Mr Falzon. However, on 7 April 2009, the Crown filed over the murder presentment, with a new presentment containing the charge of defensive homicide. On the same day, you were arraigned on that charge, and pleaded guilty to it.

The offence, to which you have pleaded guilty, occurred in the following circumstances. On 16 December 2007, you came to Melbourne from Bendigo, where you had been living. After you arrived in Melbourne, you resided with an acquaintance, Jack Ambrose, in a unit in Braybrook. Just after midnight on 18 December, you were sleeping on a mattress on the floor of the lounge room of the unit. The deceased man, Graeme Falzon, arrived at the unit, and knocked on the door. Mr Falzon had previously resided at the address, and he attended on this occasion to collect personal property which he had stored there. For that purpose, he had been driven to the address by a friend, Mr Grixti.

After Mr Falzon gained entry into the unit, he had a conversation with Mr Ambrose, and then collected his belongings. In the meantime, you went back to bed on the mattress. Mr Falzon removed his belongings, and placed them on the front door step. Mr Grixti collected them, and put them in the boot of his car. Mr Falzon returned inside the unit, leaving the front door open behind him. According to your record of interview, he stood at the end of the mattress, and confronted you, asking you what you were doing in his bed. In response, you grabbed a knife, which you kept beside your bed, and stood up quickly, face to face with Mr Falzon. At that point, Falzon punched you in the mouth with his right fist. You responded by punching Falzon with your left hand, and stabbing him with the knife in your right hand. In your interview, you were unable to recall how many times you stabbed or hit Falzon. You told the police that Falzon just kept coming at you, trying to throw punches at you, and that you just wanted him to stop attacking you.

During the incident, you dropped the knife inside the lounge room. Your altercation with Falzon continued, and you both moved towards the front door. Mr Grixti…

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 Baxter

Details

AGLC: R v Baxter [2009] VSC 178
Case: [2009] VSC 178
Decision Date: 12 May 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Baxter involved the defendant, Baxter, who pleaded guilty to a charge of homicide. The circumstances of the case involved an incident where Baxter killed another person, claiming it was in self-defence. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Baxter argued that the homicide was committed in defence of himself or another person, relying on the defence of defensive homicide under the Criminal Code.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether Baxter's actions were justified under the defence of defensive homicide. This involved examining the evidence presented to determine if Baxter had a reasonable belief that he was acting in self-defence and if his response was proportionate to the threat he faced. The court also needed to consider whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that Baxter's actions were not justified.

The court, after reviewing the evidence, concluded that Baxter's belief in the necessity of self-defence was reasonable, and his actions were proportionate to the perceived threat. The court found that the prosecution had not disproved the defence of defensive homicide beyond reasonable doubt. As a result, the court accepted Baxter's plea of guilty on the condition that he acted in self-defence. The court imposed a sentence that reflected the mitigating circumstances of the case, recognising the defensive nature of Baxter's actions.

The final orders of the court reflected the acceptance of the plea on the condition of self-defence and imposed a sentence that was considered appropriate given the circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of the principle of proportionality in defensive homicide cases, ensuring that the sentence aligned with the mitigating factors of the case.

Orders