R v Douglas - [2023] VSC 663

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0336

Between:
THE KING
-and-
RAYMOND DOUGLAS	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	2 November 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	16 November 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Douglas
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 663

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Intentionally causing serious injury — Accused, aged 61, stabbed complainant multiple times with a knife to chest, back and face — Some injuries life‑threatening — Blood transfusion required — No victim impact statement, but adverse effect apparent from complainant’s police statement and nature of injuries — Offence unplanned — DPP concedes accused may have believed need for self‑defence, but not a reasonable response in circumstances as he perceived them — Accused’s moral culpability reduced because judgment impaired by cognitive limitations, paranoia and methamphetamine use — Accused’s awareness of impact of drug use offsets mitigation attributable to that factor — Plea of guilty — Remorse — Criminal history mostly irrelevant, limited and dated — Hardship of imprisonment given afflictions — Reasonable prospects of rehabilitation — Initially charged with attempted murder but, with concurrence of DPP, sentence indication given on intentionally causing serious injury — Plea of guilty followed sentence indication of five years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of three years — Neuropsychological report obtained after sentence indication showed intellectual impairment and hardship of prison — Sentenced to five years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of two years and nine months — But for plea of guilty, sentence of seven‑and‑a‑half years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of five years — Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 16 & 322K; Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), ss 207 & 209; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5 & 6AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Mr D Porceddu	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J Desmond	James Dowsley & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

During the evening of 24 June 2022, Raymond Douglas, aged 61, assaulted Ricky Wells‑Thompson, aged 35, by stabbing him multiple times with a knife to the chest, back and face. While some of the resulting wounds were life‑threatening and required hospitalisation, fortunately, Mr Wells‑Thompson was able to receive the necessary medical treatment that ensured his survival.

Initially, Mr Douglas was charged with attempted murder and lesser alternative offences. Following a sentence indication hearing in August this year on the alternative charge of intentionally causing serious injury, I indicated I would impose a maximum sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of three years if he pleaded guilty to that charge. After a short period of consideration, Mr Douglas indicated that he would plead guilty to intentionally causing serious injury, which he did a few days later when a fresh indictment was filed.

After adjourning the matter to 2 November to allow a neuropsychological report to be obtained, on that day, I heard an opening by Mr Porceddu, who appeared for the Director of…

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 Douglas

Details

AGLC: R v Douglas [2023] VSC 663
Case: [2023] VSC 663
Decision Date: 16 November 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Douglas involved the defendant, a 61-year-old man, who was convicted of intentionally causing serious injury to a complainant. The incident, which occurred in Victoria, involved the defendant stabbing the complainant multiple times in the chest, back, and face, causing life-threatening injuries that required a blood transfusion. The matter was heard and determined in the County Court of Victoria. The defendant had pleaded guilty to the offence, which was initially charged as attempted murder, but the sentence indication was given on the basis of intentionally causing serious injury with the concurrence of the Director of Public Prosecutions.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentence for the defendant, considering the nature and circumstances of the offence, the defendant's background, and the mitigating factors presented. The court had to weigh the severity of the injuries inflicted against the defendant's impaired judgment due to cognitive limitations, paranoia, and methamphetamine use. Additionally, the court considered the defendant's remorse, the plea of guilty, and the potential for rehabilitation. The defendant's criminal history, which was limited and dated, was deemed mostly irrelevant in determining the sentence.

In its reasoning, the court acknowledged the significant impact of the defendant's drug use and cognitive impairments on his ability to make sound judgments, which reduced his moral culpability. However, the court also noted the defendant's awareness of the impact of his drug use, which partially offset the mitigation attributable to this factor. The court ultimately sentenced the defendant to five years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of two years and nine months, taking into account the plea of guilty and the sentence indication provided. Without the plea of guilty, the sentence would have been more severe, at seven-and-a-half years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years.

The court's final orders reflected the sentence imposed, taking into account the specific circumstances of the case and the statutory provisions of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), the Criminal Procedure Act 2009 (Vic), and the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic).

Orders