R v Britt - [2006] VSC 378

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1614 of 2005

THE QUEEN

JAMES MICHAEL BRITT

---

JUDGE:	Kellam J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 September 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	17 October 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Britt
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 378

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Intentionally causing serious injury by shooting – Causing injury – Pleas of guilty – Delay – Remorse – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Sentence of 8 years with a non-parole period of 5 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M. Williams SC	Solicitor to the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Prisoner	Mr D. Sheales	Tony Hargreaves and Partners

HIS HONOUR:

You, James Michael Britt, have pleaded guilty before me to one count of intentionally causing serious injury. The maximum penalty for this offence is 20 years’ imprisonment. You have pleaded guilty before me to one count of causing injury, the maximum penalty for which is ten years’ imprisonment. These crimes arise out of circumstances which took place at Darnum on the fifth and sixth days of May 2005.

The background to the events which occurred that day is that you had had a relationship with one Louise Self for a period of approximately four years leading up to November 2004. You and she separated in mid November of that year. It would appear that you, subsequent to November, harboured some hope that you and she would recommence your relationship. However, she told you in February of 2005 that there was no possibility, from her viewpoint, of there being a continuation of any relationship between you and her.

In March of 2005, Louise Self commenced a relationship with Steven Walsh. Steven Walsh had known you for approximately 13 or 14 years and over at least part of that period of time he had been a close friend of yours. Neither Louise Self nor Steven Walsh told you that they had commenced a relationship. However, it would appear that you became aware of that fact in early 2005. On 5 May 2005, at approximately 8.00 pm you attended at Steven Walsh’s house. Louise Self’s car was parked there. You got out of your vehicle and spoke to Steven Walsh in the area of his front yard. You said, “What’s Lou’s car doing here?” He answered, “I’ve started to see her”. A further discussion took place about the fact that he was seeing Louise, and had been doing so for about six weeks. In the course of this conversation you hit Steven Walsh on the nose, causing him to fall against a nearby shed and causing his nose to bleed. This event is the subject of the count of causing injury to which you have pleaded guilty.

Subsequent to that event, Louise Self came out of the house and a discussion took place after which she and Mr Walsh requested you to leave the premises. You did so.…

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 Britt

Details

AGLC: R v Britt [2006] VSC 378
Case: [2006] VSC 378
Decision Date: 17 October 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Britt involved the defendant, Britt, who was charged with intentionally causing serious injury by shooting another individual. The incident resulted in significant harm to the victim. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. Britt entered pleas of guilty to the charges against him. The primary focus of the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account the nature of the offence, the delay in bringing the case to trial, and the factors presented in mitigation, such as remorse and prospects of rehabilitation.

The court identified several legal issues that needed to be resolved in this sentencing matter. These included the gravity of the offence, the impact of the delay on the proceedings, the defendant's level of remorse, and the likelihood of rehabilitation. The court also considered the principles of deterrence and retribution in the context of the crime committed. In assessing the appropriate sentence, the court had to balance the need for punishment with the possibility of rehabilitation and the potential for the defendant to contribute positively to society in the future.

In delivering the judgment, the court emphasised the seriousness of the offence and the harm caused to the victim. The court noted the delay in the proceedings, which was partly attributed to the defendant, and considered this factor in the sentencing. The court acknowledged the defendant's expression of remorse and his good prospects for rehabilitation, which were supported by evidence presented. Ultimately, the court determined that an eight-year sentence with a non-parole period of five years was appropriate. This sentence aimed to reflect the severity of the crime while also considering the mitigating factors presented by the defence.

The court ordered that the defendant serve an eight-year sentence with a non-parole period of five years, reflecting a balanced approach to the sentencing considerations. The judgment provided a clear rationale for the sentence, ensuring that the court's decision was transparent and justifiable in light of the evidence and legal principles involved.

Orders