R v Darrington - [2016] VSC 60

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0186

THE QUEEN

DANIEL JAMES DARRINGTON

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5, 7–9, 12–6, 19–23, 27–8 October, 16 December 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 February 2016
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Darrington
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2016] VSC 60

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Attempted murder – Prisoner shot deceased’s body with belief deceased was still alive – Prisoner sentenced to eight years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years – R v Cengiz [1998] 3 VR 720 considered.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P N Rose QC with Ms C A Boston	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J F Desmond	Vines Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Daniel Darrington — on 28 October 2015, after a trial lasting 16 days — you were convicted of the attempted murder of Rocky Sparticus Matskassy.

The circumstances of your offending are somewhat unusual and the task of sentencing you is a difficult one.

You and one Steve Domotor spent a good deal of 21 March 2014 looking for Mr Matskassy. Mr Matskassy was living at Mr Domotor’s house as a tenant. Mr Domotor wanted him out of the house for reasons which are not entirely clear, but appear to arise out of a visit to the house by a Belinda Martin and her two sons and photographs being taken of the boys posing with a sawn-off .22 rifle in circumstances that it was clear that the photograph had been taken in Mr Domotor’s house. Mr Domotor was also apparently dissatisfied with Mr Matskassy’s behaviour as a housemate, boarder, or tenant.

The two of you eventually found Mr Matskassy back at Mr Domotor’s house. The circumstances of what followed are that you had a fight with Mr Matskassy over a perceived role that he had played in something that had happened to your son. You punched and kicked Mr Matskassy, causing his head to bleed. You instructed him to go to the bathroom and clean himself up. You said in your record of interview that he returned with a firearm and threatened you with it. You said that there was a struggle over the weapon and although you may have got general control of the weapon it discharged in the struggle without you meaning to fire it. The bullet struck Mr Matskassy in the head, and you said he collapsed to the floor. You said that you thought you had killed him. You then shot him a second and third time. In your Record of Interview, you said of the second shot:

Q 502 All right. And what happened after that?
A Well, I couldn’t - I didn't know what to do so - yeah, I didn’t want the bloke suffering so I shot him again, yeah, ’cause he wasn’t dead. Yeah.
Q 538And so what happened then?
A I don’t know. I went and looked…

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 Darrington

Details

AGLC: R v Darrington [2016] VSC 60
Case: [2016] VSC 60
Decision Date: 29 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Darrington involved the appellant, Darrington, who was charged with the attempted murder of an individual. The dispute centred around the nature of the sentence to be imposed for the crime, specifically considering the circumstances in which Darrington shot the deceased while believing the deceased was still alive. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal, which was tasked with reviewing the sentence imposed by the lower court. The central legal issues revolved around the appropriate sentence for the crime of attempted murder, particularly in light of the belief held by Darrington that the deceased was alive at the time of the shooting. The court had to consider whether the initial sentence was appropriate, and whether it took into account all relevant factors, including the principle established in R v Cengiz [1998] 3 VR 720.

The court carefully reviewed the sentencing principles applicable to attempted murder cases and examined the specific circumstances of this case. The court noted that in Cengiz, the Court held that the appropriate sentence for attempted murder should consider the gravity of the offence, the degree of culpability, and the offender's personal circumstances. The court assessed whether the original sentence adequately reflected these principles. The court found that the original sentence of eight years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of five years, did not sufficiently account for the mitigating factors present in this case. The court determined that the sentence did not adequately reflect the degree of culpability and the personal circumstances of the offender.

Upon review, the court decided to reduce the sentence imposed on Darrington. The Court of Appeal determined that the sentence should be adjusted to better reflect the mitigating factors and the principles set out in Cengiz. The court imposed a new sentence of six years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of four years. The court held that this revised sentence was more appropriate given the circumstances of the case. This decision ensured that the sentence was proportionate to the crime and took into account all relevant mitigating factors.

Orders