R v Clark - [2015] VSC 377

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2015 0003

THE QUEEN
v
LISA MARIE CLARK	Accused

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 April 2015; further submissions 29 May 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 July 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Clark
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 377

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty – Spontaneous stabbing of the deceased – Previous aggression by victim - Fear of the victim – Deprived background – Impaired mental functioning – Borderline personality traits - General and specific deterrence – Remorse – Rehabilitation – Good prospects.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr K Gilligan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M Dempsey with Ms S Locke	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Lisa Marie Clark, on 19 January 2015, in this Court, you pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter, being that at Ringwood on 14 June 2014 you killed Rodney Leo Clark. On 8 April 2015 I heard the prosecutor’s summary of opening and the submissions by way of plea on your behalf. I then requested further submissions in relation to the argument made by your counsel about your mental state which were provided on 29 May 2015.

The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment and I must now sentence you for this offence. Some of what I am about to say you may find difficult to understand but I am sure your counsel will explain the effect of it to you.

Circumstances of offending

This offence of manslaughter was committed at your home in tumultuous circumstances. The deceased man, Rodney Clark, who was aged 44 years at the time of his death, was your first cousin and you described your relationship with him as being like brother and sister. His father and your father were brothers. When you and he were both young children you were looked after by your grandmother, Dorothy Smith, and raised in the family home at 41 Berkley Road, Ringwood where you were living at the time of the offence.

You and Rodney Clark were close as children and adults and you helped him out from time to time. You were both users of cannabis. He was a long time user of cannabis and addicted to it. He regularly purchased that drug from you and owed you money as a result. That was a source of tension between you. Apart from that there had been a physical confrontation between you and the deceased towards the end of 2013 when he struck you three times to the face causing you injury. After that incident you were wary of him and remained of that mind when he arrived at your home on the night that he died.

On 14 June 2014, the deceased left his home in Croydon South and spent some of the day in the Croydon area pawning electrical items to raise cash in…

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 Clark

Details

AGLC: R v Clark [2015] VSC 377
Case: [2015] VSC 377
Decision Date: 30 July 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was between the Crown and Clark, where the Crown sought to determine an appropriate sentence for Clark, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The incident involved a spontaneous stabbing of the deceased, which occurred against a backdrop of previous aggression by the victim towards Clark, who in turn had a deprived background and exhibited impaired mental functioning and borderline personality traits. The court had to consider these factors along with the principles of general and specific deterrence, the presence of remorse, prospects of rehabilitation, and overall good prospects.

The primary legal issues the court was required to decide were the appropriate weight to give to the mitigating factors in sentencing Clark, and how these factors interacted with the principles of punishment and deterrence. The court needed to determine the extent to which Clark's background, mental state, and the nature of the incident justified a lesser sentence, while also considering the need to uphold the deterrent effect of the law.

The court carefully weighed the mitigating factors against the need for punishment and deterrence. Clark's deprived background, impaired mental functioning, and borderline personality traits were acknowledged, as well as the spontaneous nature of the act triggered by the victim's aggression. The court also considered Clark's remorse and good prospects for rehabilitation. Ultimately, the court concluded that while the act was serious, the circumstances warranted a sentence that recognised both the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation. The court decided on a sentence that reflected these considerations.

The court ordered Clark to serve a term of imprisonment, with specific credit given for time already served on remand. The sentence was structured to allow for opportunities for rehabilitation, considering Clark's prospects and the mitigating factors presented. The court emphasised the importance of general and specific deterrence in the sentencing decision.

Orders