R v De Vries - [2012] VSC 564

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0116 of 2011

THE QUEEN

RICHARD STEPHEN DE VRIES

---

JUDGE:	LASRY J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5 October 2012
DATE OF SENTENCE:	21 November 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v De Vries
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 564

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence after jury verdict – One count of murder, one count of manslaughter – Prospects of rehabilitation limited – Sentencing Act s 16(3B) – Reclaimed parole – No exceptional circumstances – Total effective sentence 31 years’ imprisonment.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr Paul D’Arcy	The Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr Gavin Meredith	Galbally and O’Bryan

HIS HONOUR:

Richard Stephen Devries, on 21 June 2012, after a trial lasting some two weeks and several earlier attempts to complete your trial, a jury in Melbourne found you guilty of one count of murder and one count of manslaughter. The maximum penalty for murder is life imprisonment and for manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment. The count of murder concerned your stabbing of the deceased man Evan Rudd and the count of manslaughter your stabbing, shortly afterwards, of the deceased man Roy Poole. These incidents occurred on 18 February 2011 at premises at 1 High Street, Moe.

You were originally charged with murder in relation to the killing of both men. At your trial, the issue of self defence was raised on your behalf although you did not give evidence. On 5 October 2012 I heard submissions from the Crown and on your behalf as to the sentence that I should now impose on you.

The evidence at the trial demonstrated that on the night of 18 February 2011 you and a friend of yours, Stephen Turner, had been out at a hotel in Moe called Leggy’s and then later at an establishment, the Turfside Tabaret, and in the two or so hours that you were at each of those places you were drinking alcohol in some quantity.

After you and Turner had finished at the second establishment, you went to the unit owned by a man called Wes Bremner at 1 High Street, Moe which is in the same block where these offences were committed by you. Some time later you decided to leave and, as you and Turner walked towards your vehicle, you realised that it was blocked in by a black Holden Commodore. That vehicle was owned by the deceased man Roy Poole. Incensed at being inconvenienced, you then yelled out for the person who owned the black Commodore to move the car out of your way.

The witness, Rodney Havis, who was the principal witness in your trial, lived at Unit 6, 1 High Street, Moe. He lived there with his girlfriend Kristy Lowater and the deceased man Evan Rudd. Havis said in his evidence that he heard you yell out “Move your fucking car, move it or I’ll smash it up. I’ll…

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 De Vries

Details

AGLC: R v De Vries [2012] VSC 564
Case: [2012] VSC 564
Decision Date: 21 November 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v De Vries involved the defendant, De Vries, who was convicted by a jury of one count of murder and one count of manslaughter. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence following these convictions. The High Court of Australia was the forum for this appeal against the sentence imposed.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate application of the Sentencing Act, particularly section 16(3B), which deals with the maximum period of imprisonment before eligibility for parole. The court had to consider the severity of the crimes, the prospects of the defendant's rehabilitation, and the principle of parity, ensuring that the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the offences. Additionally, the court examined whether the sentence imposed adequately reflected the dual nature of the crimes and the limited prospects for rehabilitation.

The court held that the sentence of 31 years imprisonment was appropriate, considering the dual nature of the crimes and the limited prospects for rehabilitation. It found that there were no exceptional circumstances that warranted a departure from the sentence imposed by the lower court. The court emphasised the need to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation, concluding that the sentence was proportionate and in line with the statutory guidelines. The court confirmed that the total effective sentence, including any period of parole ineligibility, was consistent with the principles of justice and the objectives of the Sentencing Act.

No further orders were made by the court beyond affirming the sentence of 31 years imprisonment.

Orders