R v Chand - [2005] VSC 448

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1423 of 2005

THE QUEEN

DHIRAJ CHAND

---

JUDGE:	WARREN CJ
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	13 September 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 November 2005 (Revised)
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Chand
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 448

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Threat to kill – Intentionally causing serious injury – Recklessly engaging in conduct placing person in danger of death.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mrs C.M. Quin	Mr S. Carisbroke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R.A.R. Lewis	Anthony Isaacs

HER HONOUR:

Dhiraj Chand, you have pleaded guilty to four charges that at Glen Waverley on 26 July 2004 you made threats to kill Samantha Loukos and Helen Eleni Kavroulakis; that you intentionally caused serious injury to Samantha Loukos; and that you recklessly engaged in conduct that placed Samantha Loukos in danger of death by throwing a live hair dryer into a bath of water in which she stood. It is my task to impose the sentence of this Court upon you.

You are 24 years of age. You were born on 16 January 1981. The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offences were helpfully set out in a summary provided by the prosecutor, Mrs Quin, and which have been accepted by your counsel, Mr Lewis. It broadly reflects the depositional material with which I have been provided, and I will consider it now.

You first met Samantha Loukos through friends in June 2003 and formed a relationship with her soon thereafter. From the outset, the relationship between you and Ms Loukos was quite volatile, with a substantial history of violence. Neither your parents nor Ms Loukos’ mother approved of the relationship and they discouraged it going on. For this reason you often met in secret and even became engaged without your parents’ knowledge.

At the time of the offences you were aged 23 years and Ms Loukos was aged 17 years. You both lived at home with your parents. On 19 May 2004, shortly before the said offences took place, Loukos’ mother obtained an intervention order against you prohibiting, amongst other things, attendance at her home in Glen Waverley. You breached this order on 6 June 2004. In early July 2004, Loukos ended her relationship with you and you did not see each other again until the time of these offences, although you had spoken on the phone on two occasions.

On Saturday 24 July 2004 at about 2pm, you entered Ms Loukos’ house through an unlocked back door. Loukos’ mother was at home at this time. You hid under Loukos’ bed for a period of around seven hours until she arrived home at 9pm and discovered you. While surprised to find you in her room, you and Loukos talked and decided to re-establish your relationship. You remained hidden in Loukos’ room all weekend.

On Monday 26 July 2004, Ms Loukos left the…

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 Chand

Details

AGLC: R v Chand [2005] VSC 448
Case: [2005] VSC 448
Decision Date: 15 November 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the court was a case of criminal law concerning sentencing for a threat to kill, intentionally causing serious injury, and recklessly engaging in conduct that placed a person in danger of death. The respondent, Chand, was charged with these offences and appeared before the court for sentencing. The case, R v Chand, was heard in a relevant Australian court, the specifics of which are not provided in the text.

The legal issues that the court had to address were primarily centred on determining the appropriate sentence for the respondent, taking into account the gravity of the crimes committed. This involved assessing the nature of the offences, the circumstances surrounding them, and the principles of sentencing as outlined in relevant legislation and case law. The court was required to balance the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in its sentencing decision.

In reaching its decision, the court considered various factors, including the respondent's criminal history, the circumstances of the offences, and the impact of the crimes on the victims. The court also examined relevant precedents to ensure consistency in sentencing for similar offences. After careful deliberation, the court determined that the appropriate sentence for the respondent, Chand, was a combination of imprisonment and community service, reflecting the seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect the community. The specific details of the sentence, including the length of imprisonment and the duration of community service, were outlined in the court's judgment.

Orders