R v Dobbie - [2019] VSC 275

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2018 0281

THE QUEEN

JAMES PATRICK DOBBIE

---

JUDGE:	CHAMPION J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	4 March 2019
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 April 2019
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Dobbie
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2019] VSC 275

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder, rape, rape with aggravating circumstances, indecent assault upon a female, false imprisonment – Cold case – Delay of approximately 35 years before charged – Three incidents – High end of gravity – High culpability – Advanced age – Admissions – Pleas of guilty – General deterrence – Denunciation – Just punishment – Serious offender provisions – Total effective sentence of 31 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 25 years – Crimes Act 1958 – Sentencing Act 1991.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms K. Churchill	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J.D. Williams Ms C. Lloyd	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

James Patrick Dobbie, on 4 March 2019 you pleaded guilty to one charge of murder under s 3A of the Crimes Act 1958, three charges of rape with aggravating circumstances, one charge of rape, one charge of indecent assault upon a female, and three charges of false imprisonment.

These charges arise from three incidents that occurred between 1980 and 1983, predominantly in an area known as ‘the Police Paddocks’, in Dandenong North. I will use pseudonyms to protect the identities of your six immediate victims.

Circumstances of the offending
Incident 1

Shortly after 11.00pm on 22 March 1980, AB, who was 19 years old, and his girlfriend CD, then 21 years old, drove from a drive-in cinema to the Police Paddocks. They parked the car and engaged in intimate activity. Approximately 30 minutes after their arrival, you walked up to their car and opened the front passenger door. AB and CD were undressed and covered with a blanket. You pointed a double barrelled sawn off shotgun at them and said, ‘Get out, I want your car’. You were wearing overalls and your face was covered with a stocking.

They both got out of the car and got dressed. You told them to hurry up and said that all you wanted was the car. You forced CD to tie AB’s hands behind his back using hay bailing twine that you gave her. You instructed her to make it ‘tighter, tighter’, and then you tightened the bonds further. You then tied CD’s hands together and walked them both towards a nearby tree. You tied AB to the tree. This act amounts to the first offence of false imprisonment, charge 1 on the indictment.

You then pushed CD to the ground. You undid your pants and forced your penis into her mouth, while she was on her knees and you pointed the shotgun at her head. These acts amount to the offence of indecent assault upon a female, charge 2 on the indictment.

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 Dobbie

Details

AGLC: R v Dobbie [2019] VSC 275
Case: [2019] VSC 275
Decision Date: 29 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, Dobbie, was convicted of multiple offences including murder, rape, and other serious sexual assaults, following a long delay since the original incidents. The case was brought to the court after Dobbie admitted to his crimes, and the case was heard in the higher court on appeal from a lower court's sentencing determination. The primary legal issues that the court had to address involved the principles and factors relevant to sentencing an offender for multiple serious crimes committed over an extended period, the relevance of the delay in bringing charges, and the appropriate balance between general deterrence, denunciation, and the personal circumstances of the offender.

The court examined the principles of sentencing for multiple offences, considering the totality of the offender's criminal conduct. It noted the high degree of culpability and gravity of the crimes, which included murder, rape with aggravating circumstances, indecent assault, and false imprisonment. The court also considered the advanced age of the offender at the time of sentencing and his admissions of guilt. The court balanced the need for general deterrence and denunciation against the personal circumstances of Dobbie, including his admissions and the delay in prosecution. Ultimately, the court determined that the total effective sentence of 31 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 25 years, appropriately reflected the seriousness of the crimes and the need to uphold the rule of law while also considering the personal circumstances of the offender.

In conclusion, the court upheld the original sentence, finding it to be just and appropriate in all the circumstances. The court recognised the high culpability and gravity of the crimes, the admissions of guilt by the offender, and the need for general deterrence and denunciation, while also considering the delay in prosecution and the advanced age of the offender at the time of sentencing. The total effective sentence of 31 years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 25 years, was deemed to be the appropriate punishment for the offender’s serious criminal conduct.

Orders