R v Bristow - [2002] VSC 59

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT WANGARATTA

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1482 of 2001

THE QUEEN

JANINE BRISTOW

---

JUDGE:	Teague J
WHERE HELD:	Wangaratta
DATE OF HEARING:	5-13 March 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	14 March 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Janine Bristow
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 59

---

Criminal Law - Sentence – Manslaughter – Single stab wound to a previously violent partner – Multiple mitigating circumstances – 4 years prison – 1 year 4 months non-parole period.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B. Morgan-Payler Q.C.	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Bourke	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Janine Bristow. You have been found guilty by a jury of the crime of manslaughter. You killed Peter McCormack at Porepunkah on 1 December 2000. You met Peter McCormack in 1998 at a hotel in Myrtleford. For some months in 1999 and into January 2000, the two of you lived together in Myrtleford and in Bright. He was a man with a propensity to violence, particularly when he had been drinking alcohol to excess. You were the victim of his violence on more than one occasion. He seems to have had for you a peculiar attractiveness. The dynamics of the relationship were such that he appears to have had a form of power over you. For months you chose to stick with him despite the violence. After yet another violent episode in January 2000, when he beat you, the police were called. The two of you then stopped living together. To keep him at bay, you obtained an intervention order from the court. During the year 2000, he worked on farms in the Porepunkah area. You came into limited contact with him as you looked around for work. You knew where he was living at the end of November 2000. It was in a pickers’ hut on the Gallo farm out of Porepunkah, where he was then working.

During the afternoon of 30 November, you went out to the Gallo farm looking for work. Before speaking with Maria Gallo about the work situation, you spoke with Peter McCormack. After you spoke with her, you went to the pickers’ hut. There, you talked with Peter McCormack and a mutual friend, Peter Finger. After a while, the three of you went to the Porepunkah Hotel for an hour or so. Peter Finger bought a slab of beer. You all then went back to the pickers’ hut. You sat around and talked further. Peter Finger went to bed and slept. You and Peter McCormack sat around talking. He was intoxicated. You were sober. You talked for about three hours.

You talked about aspects of your relationship. You also talked about your problems with anxiety and allied problems. You had been troubled with psychiatric problems for many years. The problems seem to have become apparent after you learned that you had been adopted and then found that your natural mother wanted nothing…

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 Bristow

Details

AGLC: R v Bristow [2002] VSC 59
Case: [2002] VSC 59
Decision Date: 14 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Mr Bristow, appealed against his sentence for manslaughter, arguing that the sentence was manifestly excessive. The facts of the case involved a single stab wound to his partner, who had a history of violence towards him. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of South Australia, with the appeal being brought before the Court of Criminal Appeal. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence imposed on Mr Bristow was manifestly excessive, taking into account the mitigating circumstances present in the case.

The court considered the principle of proportionality, which requires that a sentence should be commensurate with the gravity of the offence. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the offence, including the history of domestic violence between the parties, and Mr Bristow's remorse and cooperation with authorities. The court also considered the impact of the sentence on Mr Bristow's family and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, as it took into account all relevant mitigating factors and was proportionate to the gravity of the offence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The court held that the sentence of 4 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 1 year and 4 months, was appropriate in the circumstances. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that sentences for manslaughter reflect the seriousness of the offence, while also taking into account any mitigating factors present in the case. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence stands.

Orders