R v Black - [2007] VSC 385

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1530 of 2006

THE QUEEN

ANTHONY MICHAEL BLACK

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 February 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 February 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v AM Black
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 385

---

Plea – attempted murder – reckless serious injury – young offender – motiveless crime – no prior criminal history – savage attack – remorse – 13½ years’ imprisonment, minimum 8 years six months’ imprisonment before becoming eligible for parole.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Accused	J Rapke QC	Office Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	M Taft QC	Rob Stary & Co

HER HONOUR:

Anthony Michael Black, you have pleaded guilty to attempted murder of Laurinda Asher and one count of recklessly causing serious injury to her son, James Anelzark, in the early hours of the morning of Sunday 9 April 2006. You have no prior convictions and from the evidence before me, you have not been engaged in any sort of illegal activity whilst growing up. You are currently aged 20, having been born on 1 April 1986 and at the time of the commission of these offences, you were aged 19.

The maximum penalty for the crime of attempted murder is 25 years and for recklessly causing serious injury, 15 years' imprisonment.

The crimes occurred in the early morning of 9 April 2006. In the hours prior to the commission of these offences, you had attended various nightclubs. Between 6pm, when you commenced your social activities, on the Saturday night, and 6.30am on the Sunday morning, when you committed these horrific crimes, you had attended approximately eight bars at different times, travelling from Williamstown to the city, back to Williamstown, then to Prahran and from there, finally back to Williamstown to the 7 Eleven store. You had been with a variety of friends during those times and, on the last trip back, dropped some friends off in Newport before continuing in the taxi on to the 7 Eleven. There you purchased some cigarettes, used the toilet and then headed off, to walk home. As you walked home, you went past the home of the victims in this matter, who lived just a few hundred metres from where you resided, with your family. For reasons that will unfortunately forever remain a mystery, you walked down the side path of the home where both Ms Asher and her son were in bed asleep. You walked in through the unlocked back door, picked up a knife in the kitchen, went to the bedroom where Ms Asher, who was aged 39 at the time, lay sleeping and you attacked her with a knife, stabbing her in the left-hand side of the body, the right upper abdomen and severely slashing her throat, with several wounds, severing her oesophagus and narrowly missing her carotid artery. Ms Asher also received what are clearly defensive wounds to her left…

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 Black

Details

AGLC: R v Black [2007] VSC 385
Case: [2007] VSC 385
Decision Date: 23 February 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Black, the appellant stood before the court facing charges stemming from a brutal attack that resulted in serious injuries to the victim. The court was tasked with assessing the appellant's plea and determining an appropriate sentence given the gravity of the offence and the appellant's background. The appellant had no prior criminal history and the attack appeared to be motiveless, which added complexity to the case.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the appellant's plea and mitigating factors warranted a lesser sentence than the maximum penalty prescribed for the offence of attempted murder. The court also had to consider the appellant's age and whether it should be taken into account under the sentencing provisions applicable to young offenders. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the appellant's remorse and the severity of the attack in determining an appropriate custodial term and the period before parole eligibility.

In delivering the judgment, the court recognised the severity of the attack and the appellant's lack of remorse initially, but also acknowledged the appellant's genuine remorse expressed during the trial and sentencing hearing. The court considered the appellant's age and the mitigating factors, ultimately determining that a sentence of 13½ years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 8 years and 6 months, was appropriate. This sentence reflected the seriousness of the crime while also considering the appellant's background and mitigating factors.

Orders