R v Croxford - [2009] VSC 516

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1406 of 2009

THE QUEEN

RONALD CROXFORD
RICKY DOUBLEDAY

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Wodonga
DATE OF HEARING:	October 2009
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 October 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Croxford & Anor
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 516

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Defensive Homicide – Manslaughter – Co-Accused – Aiding and Abetting – Sentencing considerations relevant to youthful offenders – Prospects of rehabilitation – Relative seriousness of offending – DPP v Edwards [2009] VSCA 232.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D. O’Doherty	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Croxford	Mr G. Georgiou	Mario Vaccaro
For the Accused Doubleday	Mr G. Meredith	Kerry Clancy

HIS HONOUR:

At about 11.15 pm on Saturday 26 July 2008, you both went to the Birralee Tavern, West Wodonga. Nothing of any particular note occurred until after the tavern had closed about 1.00am. At the tavern you had met the deceased, William Winter, and two young women - Jacinta Ferguson and Ellie Plunkett. Your dealings had been superficial, but generally cordial.

After closing time, the five of you stood talking together in an area immediately outside the tavern. An incident occurred when you, Doubleday, made a remark to which the deceased took offence. The deceased then produced a knife. What happened with that knife is not clear. It was produced, and plainly produced, and there is no doubt about that, although it may or may not have been used in a threatening manner.

In any event, your reaction, Croxford, was immediate. You were hostile towards the deceased, particularly regarding the production of the knife. You removed your shirt. In the exchange that initially occurred, no blows appear to have been thrown and at some stage the knife disappeared from view. You, Croxford, pulled over a light pole immediately outside the hotel, indicative of your state of anger and frustration at that time.

At some time, either then or shortly afterwards, the deceased was observed to have his belt wrapped around his right hand with 30 to 40 centimetres of it hanging down. In that way, it was probably of little utility as a weapon, but it did show that the deceased was responding to fight. At the very least, he was making preparations to defend himself. The general melee then moved away from the entrance area of the hotel towards the middle of the car park.

You, Doubleday, were attempting to calm Croxford down and push him away from the deceased. Such attempts were unsuccessful and the heated verbal exchange continued. You, Croxford, threw a punch at the deceased, who started to back away. At this point, you, Doubleday, moved away and spoke to Ferguson and Plunkett who were further down the car park, enquiring whether they were all right.

The three of you, that is, you, Doubleday, and the two young women, then moved back towards the other two men. Shortly…

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 Croxford

Details

AGLC: R v Croxford [2009] VSC 516
Case: [2009] VSC 516
Decision Date: 16 October 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Croxford involved the defendant, Croxford, who was charged with manslaughter in relation to the death of another person. The matter was heard in the Victorian Court of Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court. The co-accused, who was involved in the incident, had already been sentenced. The court was required to consider the sentencing principles and factors relevant to Croxford's case, particularly given his youth and prospects for rehabilitation.

The central legal issue for the court was to determine whether the sentence imposed on Croxford was appropriate, taking into account the relevant sentencing considerations, including the relative seriousness of the offending and the prospects of rehabilitation. The court was also required to consider the case of DPP v Edwards [2009] VSCA 232, which provided guidance on sentencing youthful offenders. The court had to assess whether the sentence was adequate in light of these principles and whether it was proportionate to the offending.

The court found that the sentence imposed on Croxford was not adequate, as it did not sufficiently take into account his youth and prospects for rehabilitation. The court emphasised the importance of considering these factors when sentencing youthful offenders and noted that the sentence should reflect the relative seriousness of the offending. The court also highlighted the need for proportionality in sentencing, ensuring that the punishment fits the crime. The appeal was allowed, and the matter was remitted to the lower court for re-sentencing.

The final orders of the court included the allowance of the appeal and the remission of the matter to the lower court for re-sentencing, with specific consideration of the sentencing principles and factors relevant to Croxford's case. The court did not specify a particular sentence but provided clear guidance on the principles that should be applied in determining an appropriate sentence for Croxford.

Orders