R v Cook

Case [2015] VSC 406 19 August 2015

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0115

THE QUEEN

STEVE RAY COOK

---

JUDGE:	ELLIOTT J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	20 JULY 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 AUGUST 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v COOK
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 406

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – De facto wife – Plea of guilty to manslaughter – Previous violence towards victim – Prior convictions involving violence – Deprived background – Mental impairment – Borderline personality disorder – General and specific deterrence – Remorse – Rehabilitation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms A Hassan	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M Cahill	Slades & Parsons

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A.. Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

B.. Circumstances of the offence..................................................................................................... 1

B.1... Background.......................................................................................................................... 1
B.2... Events preceding the offence............................................................................................. 2
B.3... The offence............................................................................................................................ 3

C.. Some general statements concerning domestic violence...................................................... 6

D.. Impact on victims......................................................................................................................... 7

E... Circumstances of the offender................................................................................................... 8

E.1... Plea to lesser offence – no real utilitarian value............................................................. 8
E.2... Remorse................................................................................................................................ 8
E.3... Disadvantaged background............................................................................................. 10
E.4... Factors relevant to rehabilitation.................................................................................... 15
E.5... A retrial............................................................................................................................... 18

F... Sentence....................................................................................................................................... 18

G.. Other matters............................................................................................................................... 18

HIS HONOUR:

A. Introduction

Mr Steve Ray Cook, you have been found guilty of the murder of your de facto wife, Sharnee Raewyn Ngatai, on 11 January 2014 in Hampton Park, Victoria.

Before turning to the particular circumstances of your offence, it is necessary to say something broadly about the crime that you committed. Murder is 1 of the most serious crimes. For this reason, the maximum sentence for murder is life imprisonment.[1] You have taken a young woman’s life, and you have deprived her family and friends of a loved one. I have an obligation to denounce your crime in a way commensurate with its gravity.
[1]Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), s 3(1)(a).

B. Circumstances of the offence

I make the following findings in relation to the circumstances of your offence. These findings are consistent with the verdict of the jury and the evidence adduced at trial.

B.1 Background

You are now 24. You were born on 21 June 1991 in New Zealand. After a sometimes violent and unstable childhood, which I will go into further, at the age of 15 or 16, you followed your mother, Ms Lucy Romana, to Australia in or around May or June 2007.

Sharnee Ngatai was born on 21 September 1990 in Australia. She was brought up from the age of around 9 by her aunt and uncle, Louise Bowman and Sam Korau. Sharnee lived in New Zealand between 2002 and 2009.

In September 2010, you met Sharnee and began a relationship with her. Sharnee was pregnant when you met her. She gave birth to a daughter, Shavanna, on 23 March 2011. You have since fathered 2 children with Sharnee: a daughter, Aeriss, born in January 2012; and a son, Azariah, born in August 2013.

After an initially happy beginning,…

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 Cook

Details

AGLC: R v Cook [2015] VSC 406
Case: [2015] VSC 406
Decision Date: 19 AUGUST 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Cook, the appellant was convicted of the murder of his de facto wife and appealed against his sentence. The appellant pleaded guilty to manslaughter on the basis of substantial and compelling circumstances amounting to a significant mitigating factor. The case was heard in the High Court of Australia, which was asked to determine whether the sentence imposed by the trial judge was manifestly excessive.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years was manifestly excessive in the circumstances of the case. The court considered several factors, including the appellant's previous violence towards the victim, prior convictions involving violence, deprived background, mental impairment, borderline personality disorder, general and specific deterrence, remorse, and rehabilitation. The court noted that the appellant had a history of violence towards women, including the victim, and had a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, which may have affected his ability to control his violent impulses.

The court held that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. It found that the trial judge had properly considered the relevant mitigating and aggravating factors and had exercised his discretion in a manner consistent with the principles of sentencing for murder. The court emphasised the importance of general and specific deterrence in sentencing for murder and noted that the appellant's previous history of violence and his mental impairment were significant aggravating factors. However, the court also found that the appellant had shown genuine remorse and had taken steps towards rehabilitation, which were mitigating factors that the trial judge had properly taken into account. The court concluded that the sentence imposed was within the range of appropriate sentences for the offence of manslaughter committed in the circumstances of this case.

The High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the sentence imposed by the trial judge. The appellant's conviction and sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 20 years remains in place.

Orders