R v Drummond (sentence) - [2013] VSC 104

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT GEELONG

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2012 0060

THE QUEEN

BRETT ROSS DRUMMOND

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN JA
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	7 March 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 March 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Drummond (sentence)
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 104

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Bashing in concert - Extended assault whilst alcohol affected – Lesser role in assault - Extensive prior convictions for lesser offences – Plea of guilty – Limited remorse – Prospects of rehabilitation – 9 years imprisonment with minimum non-parole period of 6 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P Chadwick SC	Tait Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Brett Ross Drummond, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Edwin Singer at Geelong on 2 October 2011.

For some six months prior to Mr Singer’s death he, you, and your co-accused Walters had lived in separate rooms at the Sir Charles Hotham Hotel. You had a job as a factory hand in North Geelong whilst Walters and the deceased were unemployed.

You and Walters had become friends and were also friendly with the hotel cleaner but Mr Singer lived an isolated life. In the period leading up to Mr Singer’s death, you and Walters had become increasingly frustrated with Mr Singer’s behaviour. In June 2001 the hotel cleaner had found that Mr Singer had defecated on the sheets and carpet in his room. Some weeks later she found human faeces on the street outside the hotel door and also in the foyer, and on the floor of the bathroom and toilet adjacent to Mr Singer’s room. A number of hotel residents complained to the hotel management but Mr Singer, when spoken to, denied involvement.

In late July the cleaner again found faeces on the floor near the toilet adjacent to Mr Singer’s room together with footprints leading to the deceased’s room.

The cleaner informed the hotel management and a sign was installed at the top of the first floor stairs, stating: ‘The mess in the bathroom will not be tolerated, if it happens again people will be evicted.’

In early September you told your factory manager of the difficulties you were experiencing with Mr Singer’s behaviour. You said that Mr Singer was driving you crazy as he was shitting everywhere. You asked him if he knew anyone who had alternative accommodation.

On Saturday 1^st October 2011, late in the evening, Walters walked to the bathroom near Mr Singer’s room and found a large faecal smear on the hallway carpet outside the bathroom door.

It was immediately suspected that Mr Singer was responsible.

Walters confronted Mr Singer and told him he must clean up the mess. Walters told him that the cleaner should not have to clean up the mess. He gave him an ultimatum to clean it up by the following day. Mr Singer denied…

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 (sentence)

Details

AGLC: R v Drummond (sentence) [2013] VSC 104
Case: [2013] VSC 104
Decision Date: 13 March 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Crown versus Drummond, the High Court of Australia was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter. The incident in question involved a bashing that occurred in concert with others, under the influence of alcohol, where the defendant played a lesser role in the assault. The court was required to weigh various factors in its sentencing, including the defendant's extensive prior convictions for lesser offences, the nature of his involvement in the crime, and the level of remorse demonstrated. Additionally, the prospects of the defendant's rehabilitation were considered as part of the sentencing process.

The legal issues before the court were complex and multifaceted. The court had to balance the severity of the crime against the defendant's lesser role and limited participation in the assault. It also had to consider the impact of the defendant's prior criminal history, which included a number of lesser offences, on the appropriate sentence. Furthermore, the court needed to assess the degree of remorse shown by the defendant, which was limited, and evaluate the likelihood of the defendant's rehabilitation. These factors were integral to determining a just and proportionate sentence under the applicable sentencing principles.

In delivering its judgment, the court carefully considered the evidence and submissions presented. The court acknowledged the defendant's lesser role in the assault, but also recognised the gravity of the crime and the impact of the defendant's prior criminal history. The limited remorse shown by the defendant was noted, as was the potential for rehabilitation. After weighing all these factors, the court determined that a sentence of 9 years imprisonment, with a minimum non-parole period of 6 years, was appropriate. This sentence reflected the seriousness of the offence, the defendant's prior criminal conduct, and the need for deterrence and protection of the community.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to 9 years imprisonment with a minimum non-parole period of 6 years. The sentence was designed to balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the potential for rehabilitation, taking into account the defendant's limited role in the assault, his prior criminal history, and the limited remorse shown. This decision underscores the importance of a comprehensive approach to sentencing, considering all relevant factors to achieve a just outcome.

Orders