R v Crocker - [2012] VSC 570

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0044 of 2012

THE QUEEN

MICHAEL ANTHONY CROCKER

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Wodonga
DATES OF HEARING:	20-28 August, 22 November 2012
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 November 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Crocker
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 570	Revised 26 November 2012

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence following jury verdict – Murder – Recklessly causing serious injury - Serious Offender - Good prospects for rehabilitation - Remorse.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr E Delaney	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr T Walsh	Robert Stary Lawyer

HIS HONOUR:

Michael Anthony Crocker, on 28 August 2012, here in Wodonga, a jury found you guilty of one count of recklessly causing serious injury and guilty of one count of murder. Those counts related to incidents which occurred on 26 September 2010 in Wodonga resulting in serious injury to Amanda Jane Lee and in the death two days later on 28 September 2010 of Adam Fielding. The issue on your trial concerned whether, on the count of murder, the Crown could prove intention on your part to kill or cause really serious injury and also, on both counts, whether they could disprove that you were acting in self defence.

It is now my obligation to sentence you for these matters. Today I heard submissions from the Crown and from Mr Walsh on your behalf about what sentence should be imposed. The maximum penalty for recklessly causing serious injury is 15 years imprisonment[1] and the maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment.[2]
[1]Crimes Act 1958, s 17.
[2]Crimes Act 1958, s 3.

Circumstances of offending

The victim of the first count of recklessly causing serious injury, Amanda Lee, had known you for about four years prior to this incident. Adam Fielding, the deceased, was also effectively related to Amanda Lee and had been involved in a relationship with her sister. Adam Fielding’s family was in Queensland but Adam Fielding had returned to Victoria and was living with Amanda Lee at the time of this incident. He had been living with her for about 12 weeks.

In order to assist Adam Fielding to travel to Queensland in relation to the custody of his children, Amanda Lee had borrowed $200 from you and acknowledged during her evidence that she already owed money to you from previous occasions.

26^th of September 2010 was AFL Grand Final day and Amanda Lee and Adam Fielding were proposing to watch the football with two children. Later in the day they started drinking. Just before midnight on that night she received a message from you saying that you wanted your money back. She thought the message from you said “Get my money, that’s all I want”. There was then a phone call between you and Amanda Lee which was clearly hostile, but in the meantime Adam Fielding had left the house and had gone 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 Crocker

Details

AGLC: R v Crocker [2012] VSC 570
Case: [2012] VSC 570
Decision Date: 22 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia against Crocker, the defendant was convicted of murder following a trial by jury in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The prosecution alleged that Crocker had acted with reckless disregard for human life, resulting in the death of the victim. The dispute centred on the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Crocker, given his conviction for murder, which involved the reckless infliction of serious injury leading to death. Crocker's legal team argued for a lesser sentence, emphasising his prospects for rehabilitation and the remorse he had expressed.

The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Crocker, considering the nature of the offence, the circumstances surrounding the incident, and Crocker's potential for rehabilitation. The legal issues included whether Crocker should be classified as a serious offender, given the circumstances of the crime, and the extent to which his remorse and prospects for rehabilitation should mitigate the severity of the sentence. The court also had to consider the impact of the crime on the victim's family and the broader community.

In its judgment, the court acknowledged the gravity of the offence, noting that the death resulted from reckless behaviour. However, it also recognised Crocker's remorse and the evidence suggesting he had good prospects for rehabilitation. The court concluded that while the offence was serious, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence that balanced the need for punishment with the potential for Crocker to contribute positively to society in the future. Consequently, the court imposed a sentence that reflected these considerations, taking into account both the severity of the crime and the defendant's personal circumstances.

Orders