R v Dowsett - [2009] VSC 88

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1720 of 2008

THE QUEEN

CHRISTOFFER HAYDEN DOWSETT

---

JUDGE:	FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 March 2009 (Plea)
DATE OF SENTENCE:	23 March 2009
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Dowsett
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2009] VSC 88

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Plea of guilty – Premeditated murder – Remorse – Prisoner undertaking to give evidence against co-accused – Significant medical disabilities of the prisoner.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Lincoln	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G. Meredith	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Christoffer Hayden Dowsett, you have pleaded guilty to the murder of Michael Traycevski on 15 September 2007; on 18 March 2009 I heard a plea on your behalf.

The trial of your co-accused, Natalia Oscianko, will proceed on Monday 23 March after you are sentenced for this offence.

Your actions in the brutal killing of the deceased were premeditated and merciless. However, you have agreed to give evidence against your co-accused, Natalia Oscianko, and that fact alone necessitates a reduction of what would have been a very long period of imprisonment.

The facts

The deceased and Ms Oscianko commenced to live together in 2002, having a daughter, Mikaela, in 2005. In 2006, you and your de facto spouse, Julie Becker, met Ms Oscianko and developed a relationship with her and the deceased. They lived close by and you became very friendly with Ms Oscianko, whose relationship with the deceased was deteriorating and at times became violent. You and the deceased did not get on. On at least two occasions you became involved in physical altercations with the deceased, including striking him with a baseball bat, which resulted in him being hospitalised.

In the period of approximately three months prior to the murder of the deceased, you and Ms Oscianko discussed on a number of occasions the killing of the deceased, including the consideration of various means by which his life could be ended. As far as I can tell, whilst the plan to kill the deceased was hatched by Ms Oscianko, you went along as a willing participant, encouraged by your apparent dislike for him. You informed Ms Becker of the plan to kill the deceased and, notwithstanding her efforts to dissuade you from this enterprise, you and Ms Oscianko were determined to carry out his murder.

After considering and rejecting various means of perpetrating the murder, including throwing him off the E.J. Whitten Bridge, you finally decided to kill him on the night of 14 September. You told Ms Becker that it was going to occur: “It’s him or me”.

After a number of messages and discussions with Ms Oscianko during that evening, you prepared for the murder. You and Ms Oscianko altered the numberplates on your panel van and hid the signage on it by using duct tape. It was to be used to convey the…

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 Dowsett

Details

AGLC: R v Dowsett [2009] VSC 88
Case: [2009] VSC 88
Decision Date: 23 March 2009

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dowsett was heard by the Court of Criminal Appeal. The appellant, Dowsett, was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The appeal was against both the conviction and the sentence. The prosecution's case was that Dowsett had killed the victim with premeditation, following a dispute. Dowsett pleaded guilty to the charge of murder, and the case proceeded to a sentencing hearing.

The legal issues before the court included the appropriate sentence for premeditated murder, the effect of a guilty plea, and the significance of the appellant's offer to give evidence against a co-accused. The court also considered the appellant's significant medical conditions, which included an intellectual disability and chronic health issues. The appellant's legal team argued that these factors warranted a reduced sentence.

The Court of Criminal Appeal found that the original sentencing judge had not given adequate weight to the appellant's guilty plea and his offer to give evidence against a co-accused. The court considered the appellant's medical conditions and intellectual disability, which significantly impacted his capacity to understand and participate in the criminal process. The appeal was allowed, and the original sentence was set aside. The appellant was re-sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years, taking into account the mitigating factors.

The final orders of the court were that the original conviction was affirmed, but the sentence was quashed and replaced with a new sentence of imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years. The court emphasised the importance of considering the totality of circumstances, including the appellant's medical conditions and the circumstances of the offence, when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders