R v Copland - [2006] VSC 224

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1541 of 2005

THE QUEEN

DAVID COPLAND

---

JUDGE:	EAMES JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	29-30 May 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 June 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	The Queen v Copland
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 224	First Revision 26 June 2006

---

Criminal law – Sentence – Murder – Plea of guilty – Victim the mother of prisoner’s partner – Prisoner subject to intervention order – Victim stabbed to death in daughter’s home – Prisoner suffering depressive symptoms – Prisoner 23 years’ old at time of offence – Drug and alcohol misuse – Disagreement as to diagnosis between psychiatrist and psychologist – Relevant prior convictions – Little remorse – Prisoner serving existing sentence with 11 months to serve – Sentenced to 17 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 13 years, cumulative on present sentence save for six months – Sentencing Act 1991, ss. 15(1), 16(1).

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Hillman, S.C.	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Dann	Robert Stary & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

David Copland you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Janine Gray at Melton on 27 April 2005. Mrs Gray, who was aged 39 years at the time of her death, was the mother of Christie-Lea Danskin a young woman with whom you had been in a relationship for some three years and with whom you had two children.

At the time of the murder you were aged 23 years and Ms Danskin was aged 19 years. Your relationship, which had commenced when Ms Danskin was in her early teens, had been a tumultuous one, punctuated by violence and threatening behaviour on your part. Over a period of more than twelve months before her mother’s death Ms Danskin had made many complaints to police about your behaviour, and neighbours frequently heard arguments between you in the home in which Ms Danskin resided.

Although you are not being sentenced with respect to incidents that occurred between yourself and Ms Danskin prior to the death of Mrs Gray it is necessary to refer to some of those events to give context to events on the day of the murder. I recognise that you dispute or do not admit some of the earlier conduct which was attributed to you by Ms Danskin, but I am satisfied that this narrative provides a generally accurate picture of the build up to the murder, and the account is substantially supported by the evidence of witnesses other than Ms Danskin or by virtue of admissions contained in pleas made at court by you. Given that I use this as background material only, where there is dispute about the detail of events I will not make a finding of fact against you.

On 7 March 2005 an intervention order had been taken out against you in the Magistrates’ Court at Sunshine by Ms Danskin. That was to…

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 Copland

Details

AGLC: R v Copland [2006] VSC 224
Case: [2006] VSC 224
Decision Date: 23 June 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Copland was convicted of murdering the mother of his partner, the father of his child, in the daughter's home. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The defendant, who was 23 years old at the time of the offence, had been subject to an intervention order in relation to the victim. He had a history of drug and alcohol misuse, and was suffering depressive symptoms at the time of the offence. He had little remorse, and there was a disagreement between a psychiatrist and a psychologist regarding his diagnosis.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for the defendant, given his age, mental health, and background, as well as the nature of the offence and the lack of remorse shown. The court also had to consider the defendant's prior convictions and the need for deterrence and denunciation.

The court found that the appropriate sentence for the defendant was 17 years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 13 years, cumulative on his present sentence save for six months. The court took into account the defendant's age, mental health, and background, as well as the need for deterrence and denunciation. The court also noted the lack of remorse shown by the defendant, and his prior convictions. The court concluded that the appropriate sentence was one that reflected the seriousness of the offence, and that provided adequate deterrence and denunciation.

Orders