R v Doherty - [2017] VSC 626

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2016 0166
S CR 2016 0209

THE QUEEN
v
TREVOR DOHERTY	Accused

---

JUDGE:	T FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	3 August, 28 September 2017
DATE OF RULING:	13 October 2017
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Doherty
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2017] VSC 626

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Not guilty plea – Four counts of false imprisonment – Intentionally causing injury – Guilty pleas – Serious example of intentionally causing injury – Prior criminal history – Incarceration more onerous due to physical disabilities – Substance abuse – General and specific deterrence – Sentenced to 25 years and 6 months’ imprisonment with minimum of 21 years – 668 days pre-sentence detention.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms S Flynn	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr R Backwell	Greg Thomas Barrister & Solicitor

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Doherty, you have been convicted by a jury of the murder of Christopher Stevens. You have also pleaded guilty to four counts of false imprisonment and one of intentionally causing injury. These latter offences occurred during a siege conducted by you in the aftermath of Mr Stevens’ death. I shall set out a summary of your offending.

On Monday 14 December 2015 at approximately 9:40 am, you were at your home address at 6/51 Boonong Avenue, Seaford when a dispute developed between yourself and your erstwhile friend, Christopher Stevens. Mr Stevens had been known to you for some time and in the few days leading up to his death you had invited him to stay at your unit. In the weeks prior to that, Mr Stevens had been living a few hundred metres away at 2/7 Carder Avenue, Seaford. Mr Stevens was then 45 and he had spent long periods of his adult life imprisoned. I accept that your invitation for him to stay at your house was made in good faith.

The dispute between you culminated in you stabbing Mr Stevens in the buttock, causing him to bleed quite profusely. He ran from your unit to his friend’s home at 2/7 Carder Avenue, Seaford. You followed him, carrying a black-handled kitchen knife with a 15-20 cm blade. You arrived at the Carder Avenue unit about 40 seconds after Mr Stevens. In that time, he had armed himself with three sizeable domestic knives. After some animated discussion, you both moved to the front porch area of the unit, outside the front door. Mr Wesley Robinson, an occupant of the Carder Avenue unit, removed the knives from Mr Stevens and placed them on a table just inside the front doorway. They are clearly visible in that location in police photographs taken subsequently.

Mr Robinson remained outside. He described to the jury what he then saw. After a further animated exchange, you moved towards Mr Stevens and stabbed him in the neck/throat area. You tried to stab him again but Mr Robinson…

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 Doherty

Details

AGLC: R v Doherty [2017] VSC 626
Case: [2017] VSC 626
Decision Date: 13 October 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Doherty involved the defendant, Doherty, who faced charges related to various criminal offences, including murder, false imprisonment, and intentionally causing injury. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. Doherty pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder but admitted guilt on four counts of false imprisonment and intentionally causing injury. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for Doherty, considering the seriousness of the crimes, his prior criminal history, and personal circumstances, including physical disabilities and substance abuse.

The court examined the gravity of the offences, noting that Doherty's actions demonstrated a serious instance of intentionally causing injury. The court also took into account Doherty's extensive criminal history and the potential impact of incarceration on him, particularly due to his physical disabilities and substance abuse issues. The sentencing principles of general and specific deterrence were considered, along with the need to balance punishment with rehabilitation. The court determined that a lengthy sentence was necessary to reflect the severity of the crimes and to provide deterrence.

After careful consideration, the court sentenced Doherty to 25 years and 6 months' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 21 years. The court recognised the 668 days Doherty had already spent in pre-sentence detention. The sentence aimed to address the seriousness of the offences, the need for deterrence, and the personal circumstances of the defendant. The court's decision was influenced by the necessity to protect the community while also considering Doherty's individual needs and the potential for rehabilitation.

Orders