R v Cheney - [2009] VSC 154

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1641 of 2008

THE QUEEN

SARAH CHENEY

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	25, 26 September 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 April 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Cheney
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 154

---

Attempted Murder – serious psychiatric issues – sentence 8 years, non-parole 4 years 6 months – protection of the community - R v Tsiaras [1996] 1 VR 398 and R v Verdins (2007) 16 VR 269

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms C Barbagallo	The Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr G Georgiou	Victoria Legal Aid

HER HONOUR:

Sarah Cheney you have pleaded guilty to one count of attempted murder on May 8, 2007 at the La Trobe University Bundoora.

You are now aged 25 having been born on the 29 November 1983. You were 23 years of age at the time of the commission of the offence.

The maximum penalty for this offence is 25 years imprisonment.

The circumstances of your offending were outlined in a detailed summary by the Prosecutor which is Exhibit 1 on the plea and whilst I will not repeat all of the matters referred to in that summary I will take all of those matters into account when determining the appropriate sentence to be imposed.

At the time you committed the offence, you were in your second year of a double science degree. You were performing particularly well at your studies achieving an A average and being on the Dean’s Honours list in 2006.

The offence itself whilst simple enough in terms of reciting the facts of what actions you performed to commit the offence, is a matter that is much more complicated in terms of your motivation.

Factually what you did was, that on that morning you made your mind up that this was the day that you were going to kill people, and before leaving home that morning, you packed your backpack with the items that you intended to use on this day including four steak knives, a pair of leather gloves and a mask.

At approximately 11.00am, you went to the toilets on the third floor of the library building of La Trobe University in Bundoora, went into the last cubicle and prepared yourself for an attack. You got out the knife, the gloves and the mask from your backpack, put the mask and gloves on and you stood there for a short time, about five or 10 minutes, with the knife in your hand trying, as you described it to the police, to build up the courage to go through with it.

You kept a watch over what was going on in the toilets by peering through the gap in the toilet door. A number of people came and went from the toilet area. And you described to the police that you were just trying to time it right.

You…

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 Cheney

Details

AGLC: R v Cheney [2009] VSC 154
Case: [2009] VSC 154
Decision Date: 22 April 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an appeal by the respondent against his conviction and sentence for attempted murder. The respondent, who had a history of serious psychiatric issues, had attempted to murder his mother. The matter was heard by the Court of Appeal in Victoria. The appeal focused on the severity of the sentence, which was eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months. The respondent argued that the trial judge did not adequately consider his psychiatric history when determining the appropriate sentence.

The court was tasked with determining whether the trial judge's sentence was manifestly excessive or inadequate, particularly in light of the respondent's significant psychiatric issues. The court considered the principles set out in R v Tsiaras and R v Verdins, which emphasise the importance of considering an offender's psychiatric history when determining an appropriate sentence. The court also considered whether the sentence was sufficient to protect the community, given the seriousness of the offence.

The court held that the trial judge had given proper consideration to the respondent's psychiatric history and had adequately balanced this with the need to protect the community. The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive or inadequate, and therefore the appeal was dismissed. The court noted that the sentence reflected the gravity of the offence and the need to protect the community, while also taking into account the respondent's psychiatric history. The court further noted that the sentence was within the range of sentences typically imposed for attempted murder.

No orders were made as the appeal was dismissed. The respondent's conviction and sentence of eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and six months remained in place.

Orders