R v Callum Zane Smith - [2008] VSC 617

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT WARRNAMBOOL & MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1419 of 2007

THE QUEEN

CALLUM ZANE SMITH

---

JUDGE:	CURTAIN J
WHERE HELD:	Warrnambool and Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 May, 1 October 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 October 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Smith
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 617	Revised 24 June 2009

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Defensive homicide – Plea of guilty – Mental illness – Minor prior convictions – Youthful offender

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. Goetz	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr C.F. Thomson	Balmer & Associates

HER HONOUR:

Callum Zane Smith, you have pleaded guilty to one count of defensive homicide and have admitted prior convictions.

On the afternoon of 14 June 2006 you went to the home of Christopher John Leone to spend some time with him. You had only known him for some two or three weeks and you went there to smoke marijuana and to listen to music. Instead, there was some sort of disagreement between the two of you and you picked up a knife and attacked Mr Leone with it. The attack began in the kitchen of the flat and moved outside.

A neighbour, on hearing yelling and the sounds of fighting, called 000. The police arrived and saw you stooped over Mr Leone as he lay on the pathway outside the flat and you appeared to be punching him. As the police approached, you stood up and as you did so a knife fell to the ground. You walked towards the police saying to them, “I stabbed him in self‑defence”. You were immediately taken into custody.

Through the quick thinking of the police present, a tape recorder was placed at the head of Mr Leone and he spoke while awaiting the arrival of the ambulance. He named you and said that there had been a fight about picking up rubbish. He also told the police that you “reckon I threatened him, but I didn’t”, and that you had stabbed him some 50 to 60 times and he had tried to fend off the attack.

The ambulance arrived and Mr Leone was taken to the Warrnambool Hospital but he died shortly thereafter.

A postmortem conducted the following day determined that Mr Leone had suffered 62 incised injuries, 46 of which were described as of a stabbing type. The injuries were distributed over all four limbs, the head, neck and trunk. The incised injuries to the trunk were present on both the front and back. In addition to the major penetrating wounds, Mr Leone had injuries to the palms of his hands and the web space between the fingers which Dr Ranson, the pathologist, opined may occur when a person is attempting to ward off a sharp instrument. Dr Ranson determined that the cause of death was stab wounds to the neck, head, chest and abdomen.

Laboratory tests on specimens collected from…

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 Callum Zane Smith

Details

AGLC: R v Callum Zane Smith [2008] VSC 617
Case: [2008] VSC 617
Decision Date: 15 October 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Callum Zane Smith, the defendant was charged with the murder of a man during a confrontation in which Smith claimed he acted in self-defence. Smith pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of manslaughter, and the matter proceeded to the sentencing phase in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, who was 18 years old at the time of the offence, had a history of mental health issues and relatively minor prior convictions. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the principles of retribution, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

The primary legal issues for the court to decide were the extent to which Smith's mental health condition and age should mitigate his sentence, and how the court should weigh the mitigating factors against the seriousness of the offence. The court considered the principles established in previous cases concerning the sentencing of youthful offenders and those with mental health issues. Furthermore, the court had to consider the objective seriousness of the crime, the defendant's culpability, and the need for the sentence to reflect the community's condemnation of the conduct.

The Supreme Court, in delivering its judgment, found that Smith's mental health issues and young age were significant mitigating factors. The court recognised the substantial impact of mental illness on Smith's ability to control his actions and emphasised the importance of rehabilitation over punishment in such cases. Additionally, the court considered Smith's relatively minor prior convictions and his guilty plea, which indicated remorse and acceptance of responsibility. After weighing all these factors, the court determined that a custodial sentence was necessary but balanced the need for punishment with the need for rehabilitation, ultimately sentencing Smith to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period set at a length that reflected both the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating circumstances.

The court ordered that Smith be placed under a supervision order upon his release from prison, with conditions designed to support his rehabilitation and reintegration into society. The final orders included provisions for ongoing mental health treatment and support, reflecting the court's commitment to addressing the underlying issues that contributed to the offence.

Orders