R v Brooks - [2011] VSC 211

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0177 of 2010

THE QUEEN

STEPHEN MICHAEL BROOKS

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 March 2011 and 29 April 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	5 May 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Brooks
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 211

---

MANSLAUGHTER – Plea of guilty – Excessive alcohol use by prisoner and victim – Victim was a friend and housemate - Cause of death was blunt force abdominal injuries – Prisoner has no memory of the events - Prisoner suffered from epilepsy and schizophrenia – Remorse - Prior convictions – TES: 8 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 5 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms C Gwynn	Lethbridges Barristers and Solicitors

HER HONOUR:

Stephen Michael Brooks, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Andrew Gutowski and have admitted prior convictions.

In March 2010, you, together with Alan Anderson and the deceased, Andrew Gutowski, shared a flat at 3/47 Railway Place, West Flemington. On the morning of 8 March 2010, you and Alan Anderson travelled to the Ringwood Railway Station by train, where you met up with your brother, Richard Brooks. He gave you $50 and, upon returning to Flemington, you used this money to purchase cask wine and cigarettes. You and Mr Anderson then returned to the flat and, together with Mr Gutowski, began drinking the wine. At approximately 2.00pm that day, you and Mr Anderson returned to the nearby bottle shop and purchased a second cask of wine. Mr Gutowski joined you and, by begging, collected enough money from passers by to enable him to purchase another cask of wine. Mr Gutowski then returned to the flat with his purchase, while you and Mr Anderson remained outside the shop consuming the alcohol you had purchased, later returning to the flat.

As the day progressed, you became more intoxicated and increasingly aggressive. You argued with your girlfriend. You were verbally abusive and aggressive to Mr Gutowski and argued with a neighbour about complaints that had previously been made to the body corporate about noise. Much later that day, at approximately 9.00pm, you and Mr Anderson left the flat and Mr Gutowski remained at home. You and Mr Anderson then returned between 9.30 and 10.00 with another cask of wine, and all three of you sat around drinking.

You continued your aggressive demeanour and, at approximately 11.00pm, neighbours reported hearing loud noises coming from the flat. A male voice could be heard repeatedly yelling out, “You calling me a cunt”, and neighbours later told police that they could hear loud thuds through the walls.

The Crown contend that it is at this time that you began physically assaulting Mr Gutowski in the hallway of the flat near the bathroom door. This assault caused Mr Gutowski to fall to the floor, and you repeatedly used 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 Brooks

Details

AGLC: R v Brooks [2011] VSC 211
Case: [2011] VSC 211
Decision Date: 5 May 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Brooks, the defendant was found guilty of manslaughter in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The incident occurred when the defendant, Brooks, assaulted his friend and housemate, resulting in fatal injuries. Both parties had consumed excessive amounts of alcohol at the time of the assault, and Brooks has no memory of the events due to his inebriated state. Brooks suffers from epilepsy and schizophrenia, and his prior criminal history includes various convictions. The case involved determining the appropriate sentence for Brooks, taking into account his remorse, medical conditions, and criminal history.

The court was required to decide on the appropriate sentence for Brooks, considering the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the incident, and Brooks' personal circumstances. The key legal issues included the impact of Brooks' medical conditions and excessive alcohol consumption on his culpability, as well as the need for deterrence and rehabilitation in the sentencing process. The court also had to consider the principle of proportionality in sentencing and the need to balance the interests of the victim, Brooks, and the community.

The court found that despite Brooks' medical conditions and excessive alcohol consumption, he was still culpable for the manslaughter. The court considered Brooks' remorse, his prior criminal history, and the circumstances of the incident in determining the appropriate sentence. Ultimately, the court sentenced Brooks to eight years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years, taking into account the need for deterrence, rehabilitation, and proportionality in the sentencing process. The court emphasised the importance of addressing Brooks' underlying issues, such as his alcohol dependence and mental health conditions, to reduce the risk of reoffending.

The court ordered that Brooks be imprisoned for a total of eight years, with a non-parole period of five years. The court also imposed additional conditions on Brooks' parole, including mandatory treatment for his alcohol dependence and mental health conditions. The court recognised the importance of addressing Brooks' underlying issues to reduce the risk of reoffending and promote his rehabilitation. The court emphasised the need for a balanced approach to sentencing that considers the interests of the victim, Brooks, and the community.

Orders