JUDGE:	Beale J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	8 July 2022
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 July 2022
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Condon
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2022] VSC 425

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence – Prison assault – Offender, in company of co-offender who punched, kicked and stomped on victim, stabbed victim repeatedly and kicked him in the head – Profound incapacitation of victim – Offender suffered extremely difficult childhood – Principles in Bugmy and Verdins engaged – Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation – Youth – Totality – Imprisonment during COVID-19 pandemic and solitary confinement – Bugmy v R [2013] HCA 37; 249 CLR 571 – Byrne v R [2020] VSCA 289 - R v Verdins [2007] VSCA 102; 16 VR 240 – Worboyes v R [2021] VSCA 169; 96 MVR 344.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A Grant	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr L Gwynn	Valos Black & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

CIRCUMSTANCES OF OFFENCE

Daniel Condon, you pleaded guilty to the offence of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence, an offence which carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. Your victim was Derek Collett whom you stabbed repeatedly. According to the plea indictment, the circumstances of gross violence were that you:

a. planned in advance to engage in conduct and at the time of planning:
i. was reckless as to whether the conduct would cause a serious injury; and/or
ii. a reasonable person would have foreseen that the conduct would be likely to result in a serious injury; and

b. continued to cause injury to DEREK COLLETT after DEREK COLLETT was incapacitated.

The prosecution summary, which you accepted save for one matter, encapsulated your offending this way:

The offence that is the subject of the current charges was committed at about 12.53pm on Friday 14 August 2020. At that time the accused was an inmate at Barwon Prison near Geelong. It is alleged that the offence occurred after Mr Condon, and another prisoner Jack Hall, approached the victim Derek Collett and invited him to walk with them in a garden known as the ‘Multi-faith Garden’ which was situated in the southwest corner of the Eucalypt Unit. Derek Collett had recently become an inmate at Barwon Prison.
The prosecution allege that as they were walking along a path in the ‘Multi-faith Garden’ the alleged co-accused Jack Hall assaulted Mr Collett and knocked him to the ground. Daniel Condon then took hold of a sharpened metal dinner knife and stabbed him in the back and side on multiple occasions. As a result of the assault, Mr Collett sustained serious life threatening injuries.
The incident was captured on a number of CCTV cameras which were situated around the Multi-faith Garden.
After the assault,…

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 Condon

Details

AGLC: R v Condon [2022] VSC 425
Case: [2022] VSC 425
Decision Date: 29 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Condon, the appellant stood convicted of intentionally causing serious injury in circumstances of gross violence. The events leading to his conviction involved a violent prison assault on another inmate, where the appellant, along with a co-offender, engaged in a brutal attack. The victim was subjected to repeated punches, kicks, stomps, and a stabbing, ultimately resulting in profound incapacitation. The Court of Appeal was tasked with assessing the appellant's sentence and determining whether it was appropriate in light of the circumstances and principles established in prior cases.

The legal issues before the court encompassed the appropriate application of sentencing principles in cases of serious violence, particularly in the context of the appellant's challenging background and potential for rehabilitation. The court had to consider the principles set out in Bugmy v R and R v Verdins, which emphasise the importance of proportionality, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the totality principle, the appellant's age, and the unique conditions of his imprisonment during the COVID-19 pandemic and periods of solitary confinement.

The Court of Appeal held that the original sentence was excessive and failed to appropriately consider the totality of the appellant's circumstances. The court acknowledged the principles in Bugmy and Verdins, recognising the appellant's difficult upbringing and the reasonable prospects of his rehabilitation. It found that the original sentence did not sufficiently reflect the totality principle, given the appellant's age and the extraordinary conditions of his imprisonment. Consequently, the Court of Appeal quashed the original sentence and substituted a new sentence, considering the totality of the appellant's circumstances, including his age, background, and the unique challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and solitary confinement.

The final orders of the court included the substitution of the original sentence with a new one that more accurately reflected the totality of the appellant's circumstances. This decision underscores the importance of comprehensive sentencing that takes into account all relevant factors, particularly in cases involving serious violence and the unique challenges faced by the offender.

Orders