R v Bedson - [2011] VSC 101

Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA		Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1617 of 2009
No. 1616 of 2009

THE QUEEN

JOHN RUSSELL BEDSON
DEREK SCOTT BEDSON

---

JUDGE:	Curtain J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Trial: 30 - 31 August 2010, 1 - 2 September 2010, 6 - 10 September 2010, 13 - 17 September 2010, 20 - 23 September 2010 Plea: 17 and 18 February 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 March 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Bedson & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 101

---

Catchwords – John Bedson: Murder – Intentionally Causing Serious Injury – Jury verdicts of guilty – Victims shot as retaliatory action arising out of motor cycle club rivalry – Relatively young age – Dysfunctional childhood and adolescence– Paranoid personality disorder – Verdins not relied upon - TES: 23 years with an 18 year non-parole period.

Catchwords – Derek Bedson: Manslaughter – Reckless Conduct Endangering Life – Pleas of guilty – Young age – Prospects for rehabilitation – Remorse – Discount for plea – TES: 12 years with an 8 year non-parole period – Pursuant to s 6AAA Sentencing Act 1991 the Court would have, but for the pleas of guilty, otherwise imposed 14 years imprisonment with a 10 year non-parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C Ryan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused (J Bedson)	Mr I Hayden	Law Offices of Ellinghaus & Lindner
For the Accused (D Bedson)	Mr P Chadwick	Law Offices of Ellinghaus & Lindner

HER HONOUR:

John Russell Bedson, you have been found guilty by jury verdict of the murder of Ross Brand and of intentionally causing serious injury to Paul Szerwinski. Derek Bedson, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Ross Brand and guilty to reckless conduct endangering the life of Paul Szerwinski.

The 22 October 2008 was Geelong Cup Day. One of your friends, David Russell, went to the Cup with Jason Joffre. There was an altercation between Jason Joffre and Roger King, who was said to be a nominee, referred to as a “nom”, of the Bandidos Motorcycle Club and Jay Turner and Kane Devlin, resulting in the arrest of Jason Joffre and one Brad Taylor, known as “Bully”. At the time, you, John Bedson and Jason Joffre, were members of an affiliate group of the rival motorcycle club, the Rebels, known as Death Before Dishonour. You, Derek Bedson, had been at the Cup, but you did not witness the altercation. Nonetheless, when it came to your knowledge, you became incensed and upset that a Rebel had been assaulted and arrested, and you decided to retaliate by shooting up the Bandidos’ clubhouse. You, John Bedson, had not gone to the Cup, but instead had spent the day at your home in Ocean Grove with your girlfriend and her son. You gave evidence that you decided to go to the Rebel clubhouse to socialise, and while driving into Geelong…

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 Bedson

Details

AGLC: R v Bedson [2011] VSC 101
Case: [2011] VSC 101
Decision Date: 23 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bedson involved two brothers, John and Derek Bedson, who were facing charges arising out of incidents related to their involvement in a motorcycle gang rivalry. The dispute was heard in a higher court where the legal matters were thoroughly examined. John Bedson was convicted by a jury of murder for the intentional infliction of serious injuries upon victims in retaliatory attacks stemming from the gang conflict. Derek Bedson, on the other hand, had entered guilty pleas to charges of manslaughter, reflecting reckless conduct that endangered lives.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for the brothers, considering the circumstances of the crimes, their backgrounds, and the impact of their respective pleas. For John Bedson, the court considered the nature of the offence and his background, including a dysfunctional childhood, adolescence, and a diagnosis of paranoid personality disorder. The court also examined the seriousness of the retaliatory nature of the crime and the absence of reliance on any mitigating circumstances. In contrast, Derek Bedson's case involved a guilty plea which was made at an early stage, along with evidence of remorse and prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to balance these factors against the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence.

After careful consideration of all factors, the court sentenced John Bedson to a total effective sentence of 23 years with an 18-year non-parole period, reflecting the gravity of his crime and the need to protect society. For Derek Bedson, the court imposed a total effective sentence of 12 years with an 8-year non-parole period, taking into account his guilty plea, remorse, and potential for rehabilitation. The court acknowledged that had Derek not pleaded guilty, a harsher sentence might have been imposed, consistent with the provisions of the Sentencing Act 1991.

Orders

Orders of the court

John Bedson: TES: 23 years with an 18 year non-parole period.

Derek Bedson: TES: 12 years with an 8 year non-parole period.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.