R v Bookham - [2005] VSC 483

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1477 of 2005

THE QUEEN

TODD JAMES BOOKHAM

---

JUDGE:	WILLIAMS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 November 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 December 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Bookham
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 483	1^st Revision 19 January 2006

---

CRIMINAL LAW- Sentence- Attempted murder of former girlfriend by cutting throat- Intentionally causing serious injury to former girlfriend’s step-sister by stabbing –Stabbing in presence of victim’s six year old son- Relatively youthful offender - Guilty plea – Depressed state- Drug and alcohol abuse- Remorse - Good prospects of rehabilitation –Strong family support

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr K. Gilligan	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr B. Murphy, Q.C Mr G. Steward	Garden & Green Barristers & Solicitors

HER HONOUR:

Todd James Bookham, you have pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of Karen Lee Anne-Marie Fairbairn and the offence of without lawful excuse intentionally causing serious injury to Annette Mary Jayne Elliott at Swan Hill on 31 December 2004. The maximum penalties for the offences are 25 years’ imprisonment, in the case of attempted murder, and 20 years’ imprisonment for the offence of intentionally causing serious injury. The committal hearing took place on 2 May 2005 and you pleaded guilty to each charge on 7 November 2005 before your trial which had been fixed for 21 November 2005 at Mildura. Senior counsel submitted on your behalf that your plea should be regarded as a plea of guilty at the earliest time and there was no disagreement by the prosecution.

You and Ms Fairbairn had been involved in a relationship for approximately 12 months before the offences occurred. Ms Elliott was Ms Fairbairn’s stepsister. Your relationship with Ms Fairbairn was not going well. Indeed, you had concluded that Ms Fairbairn was having a sexual relationship with Ms Elliott. Ms Fairbairn had told you that you two needed to have a break. You were having great difficulty accepting her decision.

You had collected your belongings from Ms Fairbairn’s house on 30 December 2004, but, nevertheless, you telephoned her just before midnight, pleading with her and insisting on coming around to see her. Ms Elliott had arrived to visit Ms Fairbairn at some time after she had returned home after finishing work at the Swan Hill Club at about 9.30 pm. She had brought her six year old son Cody with her. It was Ms Elliott who came around in the car and brought you back to Ms Fairbairn’s house in the early hours of the following morning.

Ms Fairbairn told you that you had five minutes of her time. You went to sit outside side by side. You told her that you loved her and wanted to work things out between you. She said that she did not love you any more. You put your left arm around her neck and your…

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 Bookham

Details

AGLC: R v Bookham [2005] VSC 483
Case: [2005] VSC 483
Decision Date: 13 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Bookham involved a defendant who pleaded guilty to the attempted murder of his former girlfriend by cutting her throat, and to causing serious injury to the victim's step-sister by stabbing her. The stabbing occurred in the presence of the victim's six-year-old son. The defendant was relatively young at the time of the offence. He entered a guilty plea, and it was noted that he was in a depressed state, struggled with drug and alcohol abuse, and showed remorse. The court was presented with the defendant's prospects of rehabilitation, as well as the strong family support available to him.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentence for the defendant's crimes, taking into account his age, guilty plea, state of mind, substance abuse issues, remorse, and potential for rehabilitation, alongside the gravity of the offences committed. The court had to balance these mitigating factors against the severity of the crimes, particularly the impact on the victims and their families, and the presence of the six-year-old son during the stabbing incident.

The court considered the mitigating factors presented, including the defendant's relatively young age at the time of the offence, his guilty plea, his remorse, and his prospects for rehabilitation, as well as the strong family support available to him. However, the court also weighed the severity of the crimes, the intentional nature of the offences, and the impact on the victims and their families. The court ultimately determined that while the mitigating factors were significant, they did not outweigh the gravity of the crimes. The court imposed a sentence that reflected both the seriousness of the offences and the mitigating circumstances present in the case.

The court ordered the defendant to serve a term of imprisonment, taking into account the totality of the circumstances. The exact length of the sentence was determined by the court based on a careful consideration of the mitigating and aggravating factors. The court also noted the importance of rehabilitation and support services for the defendant during his incarceration, in light of his prospects for rehabilitation and the support available from his family.

Orders