R v Bell

Case [2024] VSC 384 2 July 2024

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2023 0291

THE KING	Crown
v
CHRISTOPHER BELL	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 May 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	2 July 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Bell
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 384

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Manslaughter by criminal negligence — Offender killed friend and co-worker when he accidentally ran over him in a bobcat in the work yard whilst affected by alcohol — Priors for driving whilst substance affected — Plea of guilty at first reasonable opportunity — Remorse — Difficult childhood due to sexual abuse — PTSD and ADHD — Verdins 1, 3, 5 & 6 — Offender sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment with minimum term of 4 years — Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571 — R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269 — Sentencing Act 1991, s89A.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms E Ramsay	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms A Wong	Victorian Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Christopher Bell, you pleaded guilty to manslaughter, which carries a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. The form of manslaughter to which you pleaded guilty is manslaughter by criminal negligence.
You accidentally killed a friend and work colleague, George Tereva, aged 34, on 7 September 2022 when you ran over him in a bobcat in the work yard of HSG Developments at 81 Bangholme Road, Dandenong. You and your work colleagues, including Mr Tareva, Ernes Imer and James Reeve, had stayed behind after work to have a few drinks. Your boss, Steve Galea, had left for the day around 3.30pm.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE

The circumstances of your offence are sufficiently described in the prosecution summary at paragraphs 11 to 20 and 45:
11. Between 3:30pm and 4pm, Mr Tereva spoke to his father, Tony Mokau, by phone and told him that he was having a few drinks at work ‘with the boys’ and asked if his father could pick them up.
12. The group stayed at the yard and waited for Mr Tereva’s father to arrive. By this stage [Mr Bell] had consumed [about] four beers (Corona bottles).
13. At 4:25pm, [Mr Bell] entered the bobcat and began operating it. CCTV from a neighbouring business captured, from a distance, Mr Bell’s movements on the bobcat and the subsequent incident involving Mr Tereva. In the CCTV footage, [Mr Bell] appears to drive the bobcat around in semi-circles and then, several times, drive towards and away from where the remainder of the group (Mr Tereva, Mr Imer and Mr Reeve) were standing or sitting. This continued for approximately three minutes.
14. According to Mr Imer , [Mr Bell] was, “going round in circles, making jokes, spreading dirt and doing stupid shit.”
15. On a final occasion [Mr Bell] drove the bobcat up close to where Mr Tereva was sitting on a chair. This occurred at approximately 4:28pm. Mr…

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 Bell

Details

AGLC: R v Bell [2024] VSC 384
Case: [2024] VSC 384
Decision Date: 2 July 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Bell, the defendant was charged with manslaughter by criminal negligence after he accidentally killed his friend and co-worker in a workplace accident involving a bobcat. The incident occurred in a work yard, where Bell, under the influence of alcohol, inadvertently ran over the victim. Bell had previous convictions for driving while under the influence of a substance. He pleaded guilty at the first reasonable opportunity, expressing remorse for his actions. Bell's background included a difficult childhood marked by sexual abuse, and he was diagnosed with PTSD and ADHD.

The legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for manslaughter by criminal negligence and the consideration of mitigating factors such as the offender's background, remorse, and prior convictions. The court had to balance these factors against the severity of the offence and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. It was necessary to consider relevant legislation, including the Sentencing Act 1991 and the principles established in Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571 and R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269.

The court acknowledged Bell's difficult childhood and diagnosed mental health conditions as significant mitigating factors. However, it also considered the gravity of the offence, particularly the fact that Bell was under the influence of alcohol at the time of the incident. After careful deliberation, the court sentenced Bell to seven years' imprisonment with a minimum term of four years. The sentence reflected the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, while also taking into account the mitigating circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that Bell be remanded in custody pending transfer to a correctional facility to serve his sentence. The court also ordered that the matter be referred to the parole board for consideration of early release on parole, taking into account Bell's remorse and efforts towards rehabilitation.

Orders