Legal Research
Cases
R v Casey

R v Casey

Case [2008] VSCA 53 4 April 2008

Type to search within this case.

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No 118 of 2006

THE QUEEN
	v
GRANT DANIEL CASEY

---

JUDGES:	MAXWELL P, NEAVE JA and COLDREY AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	13 March 2008
DATE OF ORDER:	13 March 2008
DATE OF REASONS:	4 April 2008
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSCA 53

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Appellant pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter, by unlawful and dangerous act, after stabbing his brother – Whether judge incorrectly sentenced on the basis of murderous intent – Whether judge’s treatment of appellant’s state of mind appropriate – Whether sentence (9 years’ imprisonment with a 6 year NPP) manifestly excessive – Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Appellant	Mr C B Boyce	Victoria Legal Aid
For the Respondent	Mr J D McArdle	Ms A Cannon, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions

MAXWELL P:

I agree with Coldrey AJA. It was for the reasons which his Honour gives that I joined in the order dismissing the appeal.

NEAVE JA:

I too agree with Coldrey AJA.

COLDREY AJA:

On 31 March 2006, the appellant, Grant Daniel Casey, pleaded guilty in the Supreme Court to one count of manslaughter. The victim was the appellant’s brother Martyn Casey and the incident giving rise to his death occurred on 14 November 2004.

At the time of the commission of this offence the appellant was aged 30 years, and at the time of sentencing he was 31 years of age.

The sentence imposed was 9 years and a period of 6 years was fixed before eligibility for parole. Pre-sentence detention was declared to be 515 days.

The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment.

The appellant had some 16 previous convictions from five court appearances between May 1992 and July 2003. These included causing wilful damage, serious assault and possession of a knife in a public place.

On 3 August 2007 the appellant was granted leave to appeal. That appeal was on three grounds which are as follows:

1. The sentence is manifestly excessive.
2.The learned sentencing judge erred by failing to have proper regard to current sentencing practices as required by s 5(2)(b) of the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) and by giving undue weight to the increase in maximum penalty for the offence of manslaughter.

3.The learned sentencing judge erred in his assessment of the nature and gravity of the offence.

Before this Court, counsel for the appellant indicated that ground 2 would not be pressed but sought to maintain grounds 1 and 3.

At the end of argument, this Court was unanimously of the view that neither of these grounds had been made out and, consequently, the appeal should be dismissed. It was indicated that reasons would be given at a later date. These are my reasons.

This is a case, in which, in my view, the sentencing judge dealt comprehensively with all of the facts and the sentencing principles applicable to them. I propose, therefore, to take the somewhat unusual step of…

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 Casey

Details

AGLC: R v Casey [2008] VSCA 53
Case: [2008] VSCA 53
Decision Date: 4 April 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant in this case was convicted of manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act after stabbing his brother. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal. The appellant argued that the sentencing judge incorrectly considered his murderous intent, and questioned the appropriateness of the judge’s treatment of his state of mind at the time of the offence. The appellant also argued that the sentence of 9 years’ imprisonment with a 6 year non-parole period was manifestly excessive.

The court considered whether the sentencing judge had erred in taking into account the appellant’s murderous intent, and whether the judge had appropriately considered the appellant’s state of mind. The court also considered whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive. The court found that the sentencing judge had not erred in taking into account the appellant’s murderous intent, as it was relevant to the gravity of the offence. The court also found that the judge had appropriately considered the appellant’s state of mind, taking into account his intoxication and emotional state at the time of the offence. The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and dismissed the appeal.

The court’s decision highlights the importance of considering the offender’s state of mind and intent when sentencing for manslaughter. The court found that the sentence imposed was appropriate, and not manifestly excessive. The appeal was therefore dismissed, and the original sentence stands.

Orders