R v Brock & Green - [2006] VSC 13

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1421 of 2005

THE QUEEN

BARRY TREVOR BROCK

ANTHONY SHANE GREEN

---

JUDGE:	Hollingworth J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 December 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 February 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 13

---

Criminal law – sentence – two accused – intentionally causing serious injury – theft of victim’s wallet – unlawful imprisonment in boot of car – accused and victim all heavily intoxicated – no permanent injury to victim – both accused having multiple prior convictions – total effective sentences of imprisonment of 4 years 3 months and 3 years 6 months respectively.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Brock	Mr T Sullivan	Leanne Warren & Associates
For the Accused Green	Mr L Thompson	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

Barry Trevor Brock and Anthony Shane Green, you have both pleaded guilty to one charge of each of intentionally causing serious injury, theft and unlawful imprisonment. It is now my duty to sentence you for those offences.

The offences

The offences arise out of events that took place on the evening of Wednesday 5 September 2002. On that night, you both arrived at Leggies Hotel in Moe at around 8.00pm. There you met the victim, a man named Anthony McBride, who neither of you had met before that night. Mr McBride had been at the hotel for much of the day, drinking heavily and consuming cannabis. At various times during the evening, he had been loud and obnoxious and annoying other patrons; he had been warned by the manager that he should calm down or be thrown out.

The three of you drank together at Leggies until around 11.00pm. It seems that you left because the manager had finally had enough of the victim’s behaviour and wanted him to leave. You all went to a nearby house to smoke cannabis.

At some stage in the evening, the victim recognised the surname Brock, and accused one or more of your brothers of having raped a woman known to him. During the evening, the victim kept bringing up this topic of conversation in a fairly heated manner; each time it resulted in an argument. However, by the time the three of you were kicked out of the house in Newborough for being too loud, it seems that the mood was relatively amicable.

The three of you drove about 5km along Princes Highway, towards Traralgon. At this stage, the intention was that you would continue drinking once you got to Traralgon. However, somewhere along the highway, the car was pulled over, and both of you got out and pulled the victim out of the passenger side door.

The precise details of what occurred next are not clear, for several reasons. You were all heavily intoxicated with alcohol and cannabis at the time; indeed, the victim described himself as having been “blind drunk”. The victim…

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 Brock & Green

Details

AGLC: R v Brock and Green [2006] VSC 13
Case: [2006] VSC 13
Decision Date: 8 February 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The two accused, Brock and Green, were before the court on charges of intentionally causing serious injury, theft, and unlawful imprisonment. The victim, heavily intoxicated like the accused, was assaulted and had their wallet stolen before being unlawfully confined in the boot of a car. Despite the victim not suffering any permanent injuries, the incident was serious in nature. Both accused had significant criminal histories, which the court considered in its sentencing. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentences for the accused, taking into account the severity of the offences, the circumstances surrounding the incident, and the accused's prior criminal records.

The court examined the gravity of the offences, noting the intentional nature of the assault and the risk posed to the victim's life or health. It also considered the element of unlawful imprisonment, which added to the severity of the crime. The court further acknowledged the impact of alcohol on the accused's judgment and actions but held them accountable for their choices. The prior convictions of the accused were weighed heavily, as both had multiple prior convictions, indicating a pattern of criminal behaviour. The court balanced these factors with the absence of permanent injury to the victim and the potential for rehabilitation.

In delivering its judgment, the court recognised the need for punishment and deterrence, given the nature of the offences and the accused's criminal histories. It imposed sentences that reflected the seriousness of the crimes while also considering the possibility of rehabilitation. Brock was sentenced to a total effective period of imprisonment of 4 years and 3 months, and Green received a total effective sentence of 3 years and 6 months. The court's decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the offences, the circumstances, and the accused's criminal records, ensuring that justice was served in a manner that addressed the needs of the community and the potential for reform of the accused.

Orders