R v Christie - [2015] VSC 769

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0063

THE QUEEN

PAUL STEVEN CHRISTIE

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15 December 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 December 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Christie
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 769

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Murder – Sentence after trial – 17 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr K J Doyle	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T E Wraight QC with Mr A P Halphen	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

On 17 November 2015, after a trial lasting nine days you, Paul Christie, were convicted of the murder of Paul Kennelly. That was the tragic result of events which occurred at 8B Walsh Street, Noble Park, on 21 November 2014.

Karen Camilleri lives at that address and you were living there for between one and two weeks prior to the date of these events. You had been out during the afternoon and evening, and Cheree Smith and Paul Kennelly had come to the house believing that they had Karen Camilleri’s permission to stay the night. Karen Camilleri is intellectually disabled, but with support is capable of operating in the community, although it is clear that her ability to reason with perception is limited.

Karen Camilleri, Cheree Smith and Paul Kennelly shared a meal. They were later joined by Frank Mazzacca, who had previously been in a relationship with Karen Camilleri. He gave evidence that he had seen you at Coles in Noble Park. You arrived not long after Mazzacca, at about 10.15 pm. What happened next is not entirely clear, but it appears that Karen Camilleri asked you to get Cheree Smith and Paul Kennelly to leave the flat. Karen Camilleri treated you as being in charge and having been, as it were, appointed to that position by her carer. You told Paul Kennelly to leave. He was then lying on the floor between the couch and what might be called the dining room table. Paul Kennelly responded telling you to “fuck off”, or words to that effect. You then attempted to remove him and pulled him up from a prone position. It seems clear that you did punch Paul Kennelly at some stage during this part of the events and that he probably did punch you. After he got to his feet, there was a struggle which ended near the front door, and you went to the kitchen. Paul Kennelly then said words to the effect, “Come on, mate, let’s go.” He went towards you in the kitchen and struck you to the back of the head about three times. At about that time you armed yourself with a steak knife. As Kennelly started punching you, you started stabbing him. You were later to say that you kept stabbing him until he stopped punching you. You inflicted a number of stab…

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 Christie

Details

AGLC: R v Christie [2015] VSC 769
Case: [2015] VSC 769
Decision Date: 22 December 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The parties involved in the case of R v Christie were the prosecution, represented by the Crown Solicitor, and the defendant, Christie, who was represented by counsel. The nature of the dispute was a criminal case where Christie was convicted of murder. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction. The central issue that the court was required to decide was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Christie after his conviction for murder. This involved considering the circumstances of the crime, Christie’s background, and the principles of sentencing in murder cases.

The court meticulously examined the evidence presented during the trial and the submissions made by both counsel. It assessed the severity of the crime, the nature of Christie’s involvement, and any mitigating factors that might influence the sentencing. The court also took into account the statutory guidelines and case law relevant to sentencing in murder cases in the jurisdiction. After thorough deliberation, the court determined that a sentence of 17 years’ imprisonment was appropriate, with a non-parole period of 14 years. This decision reflected a balance between the need for punishment and deterrence, and the potential for rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

The reasoning behind the court's decision was grounded in the principles of justice, deterrence, and the specific circumstances of the case. The court found that while the crime was severe, there were aspects of Christie’s background and conduct that warranted a degree of leniency. The sentence imposed was designed to reflect the gravity of the offence while also allowing for the possibility of Christie’s rehabilitation and eventual reintegration into society. The final orders of the court were that Christie be sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 14 years, to be served in accordance with the laws governing the sentencing and imprisonment of convicted individuals in the jurisdiction.

Orders