R v Drummond - [2000] VSC 206

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION	Not Restricted

No. 1436 of 2000

THE QUEEN

CHRISTINE DRUMMOND

---

JUDGE:	TEAGUE, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF SENTENCE:	15 MAY 2000
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2000] VSC 206

---

CATCHWORDS: Crime – Charge of assisting an offender – Plea of guilty – Accused a solicitor – Suspended sentence.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Prosecution	M. Bastianon	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	N. Clelland	Slades & Parsons

HIS HONOUR:

Christine Drummond you have pleaded guilty to one count of assisting an offender knowing or believing he had committed the crime of murder. The offender in question was Paul Odgers. On or about 27 October 1996 he killed Bryce Chenhall.

I propose to explain in some detail my reasons for my proposing, first, to sentence you to a term of imprisonment but also to make an order suspending the whole of the sentence. Before making such an order, I am required under the Sentencing Act either to explain or to cause to be explained certain matters as to the operation of a suspended sentence. Those matters are the purpose and effect of the proposed order and the consequences that may follow if you commit another offence punishable by imprisonment in or outside Victoria during the next two years. It seems reasonable to assume that both you and your counsel are well familiar with those matters. Accordingly I could proceed on the basis that they can now be treated as having been caused to be explained. Nevertheless I do ask both you and your counsel whether any further time is needed to permit any further explanation.

MR CLELLAND: No, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: No. All right, I will proceed accordingly.

After a trial in this court before Coldrey J and a jury in 1998, Paul Odgers was found guilty of the murder of Bryce Chenhall. On 30 October 1998, Coldrey J sentenced Paul Odgers to a term of 21 years imprisonment.

You met Paul Odgers many years ago. You met him in your capacity as a solicitor. He was raised in an abusive environment. He has had little education. He has a poor work history. He has an extensive criminal record. He is more than 12 years younger than you are. You ceased acting for him but remained a friend. It was an unusual kind of friendship. It was not of a sexual kind. You were prepared to assist him somewhat like an older sister. You hoped that you could change him for the better. He was taking advantage of you. He was manipulating you. You knew that but were prepared to accept it because you felt he had had a rotten life. He made you feel guilty for not doing more for him. He developed some kind of hold over you. In addition to the manipulation, based on guilt, there could be manipulation based on fear. At times he hit you. The most rational reaction would have been to avoid…

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 Drummond

Details

AGLC: R v Drummond [2000] VSC 206
Case: [2000] VSC 206
Decision Date: 15 May 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Drummond involved the respondent, a solicitor, who was charged with assisting an offender. Drummond entered a plea of guilty and the matter proceeded to sentencing. The court had to determine the appropriate penalty for Drummond’s actions. The central legal issues revolved around the nature of Drummond's assistance to the offender and the appropriate sentencing principles to apply in light of his guilty plea and professional status.

The court considered the principle that legal practitioners have a duty to uphold the law and must not assist in criminal activities. Drummond’s role as a solicitor heightened the seriousness of his misconduct, as it involved a breach of professional ethics and public trust. The court also evaluated the principle of proportionality in sentencing, weighing the gravity of Drummond’s actions against the need for deterrence and rehabilitation. Given the guilty plea, the court acknowledged a potential discount in sentencing, but also had to consider the need to maintain the integrity of the legal profession.

After careful deliberation, the court determined that a suspended sentence was appropriate. The decision recognised Drummond’s early guilty plea and the absence of any significant aggravating factors, but also emphasised the importance of maintaining public confidence in the legal system. The court concluded that a suspended sentence would serve as a sufficient deterrent and would allow Drummond to continue his professional career under supervision, thereby balancing the need for punishment with the principles of justice and rehabilitation.

Orders