R v Bonney - [2022] VSC 264

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2021 0139

THE QUEEN	Crown
v
BIANCA BONNEY	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 April 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	25 May 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Bonney
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 264

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Causing serious injury intentionally – Offender used multiple weapons in assault on friend – Upper range example of offence – Significant relevant criminal antecedents – Sentenced as serious violent offender – Poor prospects of rehabilitation –Schizophrenia – Verdins principles 1, 3, 4 and 5 engaged – Bugmy principles engaged – Delay – Plea of guilty at first reasonable opportunity – Totality – Bugmy v R (2013) 249 CLR 571; [2013] HCA 37 – Nash v R (2013) 40 VR 134; [2013] VSCA 172 – R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269; [2007] VSCA 102 – Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169 – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) ss 15, 16 – Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), Part 2A & Schedule 1, Clause 2(c)(iab)(i), s 6D.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Dickie	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms M O’Brien with Ms A Sharpley	Slades & Parsons

HIS HONOUR:

Bianca Bonney, you pleaded guilty to causing serious injury intentionally to Gabriel Meza-Rosas on 8 February 2020.

Serious injury means, relevantly, an injury (including the cumulative effect of more than one injury) that endangers life or is substantial and protracted.[1]
[1]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 15.

The maximum penalty for the offence of causing serious injury intentionally is 20 years’ imprisonment.[2]
[2]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 16.

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENDING

As regards the circumstances of your offending, you and the victim first met approximately two years prior to the offending. You became friends.

On or around 2 February 2020 you told the victim you were homeless and he said you could stay with him. You stayed the first night in his room at a rooming house and then moved into room 10 after the victim vouched for you and paid the first few days boarding fee.[3]
[3]Summary of Prosecution Opening, 6 February 2022, [3].

On 8 February 2020 you invited the victim to drink some beer with you in the rooming house courtyard, which he did. You then invited him to go to your room, which he did. The agreed Summary of Prosecution Opening outlines what occurred next:

[5] [You and the victim] went into room 10. Once …inside, [you] locked the door. [You] then approached the victim and kicked him, and said “you are a fucking dog. I am going to kill you.” [You] then produced a knife which was concealed in [your] pants. The knife was a kitchen type knife, estimated by the [the victim] to be about 15 cm long. [You] screamed and said “you’re now going to die, you rat. I am going to hell for this.”…

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 Bonney

Details

AGLC: R v Bonney [2022] VSC 264
Case: [2022] VSC 264
Decision Date: 25 May 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the defendant, Bonney, faced charges relating to an assault on a friend where he intentionally caused serious injury using multiple weapons. The incident resulted in significant harm to the victim, prompting a thorough examination of the appropriate sentence under the applicable criminal law statutes. The central issue before the court was to determine the appropriate penalty for the defendant, considering the severity of the offence, the use of multiple weapons, the offender's significant criminal history, and his prospects for rehabilitation, alongside his mental health condition of schizophrenia.

The court needed to weigh various factors to decide on the sentence. These factors included the principles outlined in Verdins, specifically principles 1, 3, 4, and 5, which pertain to the gravity of the offence, the need for deterrence, the offender's culpability, and the protection of society, respectively. Additionally, the court had to consider the principles established in Bugmy v R, focusing on the offender's early guilty plea and the totality principle, which requires the court to consider the cumulative effect of all penalties imposed. The offender's schizophrenia and poor rehabilitation prospects further complicated the sentencing decision.

The Supreme Court found that the offender's actions warranted an upper range sentence due to the gravity of the offence and the use of multiple weapons. The court considered the Verdins principles and the Bugmy principles, acknowledging the offender's early guilty plea and the delay in proceedings. The offender's significant criminal history and poor prospects for rehabilitation also influenced the decision. Consequently, the court sentenced the defendant as a serious violent offender, reflecting the severity of the crime and the need to protect the community.

Orders