R v Dupas - [2000] VSC 356

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

CRIMINAL DIVISION Not Restricted
No. 1524 of 1999

THE QUEEN

v.

PETER NORRIS DUPAS

---

JUDGE:

VINCENT, J.

WHERE HELD:

MELBOURNE

DATE OF SENTENCE:

22 AUGUST 2000

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2000] VSC 356

---

CATCHWORDS: Murder – R. v. Beckett, unreported 20 August 1998 – Lengthy criminal history involving acts of sexual violence – Serious sex offender – No significant prospect of rehabilitation – R. v. Denyer [1995] 1 V.R. 186 – R. v. Coulston [1977] 2 V.R. 446 – R. v. Lowe [1977] 2 V.R. 465 – Sentenced to imprisonment for life – No minimum term fixed.

---

APPEARANCES:
Counsel Solicitors

For the Crown
Mr. G. Horgan Office of Public Prosecutions

For the Defendant Mr. D. Brustman Victoria Legal Aid
HIS HONOUR:
1 Peter Norris Dupas, you have been found guilty by the jury empanelled upon your trial in this Court of the murder at Northcote in the State of Victoria on the 19th day of April 1999 of Nicole Amanda Patterson.

2 It is now my responsibility to impose sentence upon you.

3 Miss Patterson, who was 28 years of age at the time, carried on practice as a qualified psychotherapist and youth counsellor. She worked at the Ardoch Centre, an organization which endeavours to assist homeless or disadvantaged young people, and she also assisted in activities associated with the Australian Drug Foundation.

4 However, she had an ambition to develop her own private practice. To this end, she inserted an advertisement in a local newspaper circulating in the Northcote area in which she lived. It indicated that Miss Patterson engaged in the counselling of persons with respect to relationship and sexuality problems. The advertisement also made clear that strict confidentiality concerning any disclosures made by clients to her would be maintained. I suspect, but do not find, that your interest was excited by these references as you are a secretive individual with very disturbed sexuality.

5 When and how you learned that the person who inserted the advertisement was an extremely attractive young woman is unknown. Perhaps, as the prosecutor suggested to you in cross-examination, you saw a photograph of Miss Patterson which appeared in a local newspaper, although you denied this was the case.

6 However your attention was attracted to her, it is evident that you must have selected her as a potential victim some time before her death. Without initially appreciating the significance of the answer in the course of cross-examination, you made the startling admission that you first attempted to contact her by calling her on a public telephone a day or so before 3 March 1999, that is, approximately six weeks before she was killed.

7 You claimed that you are unable to recall where the particular telephone was located and you were evasive when asked about your reason for adopting this course, rather than ringing her from your home. It is highly likely that you were already seriously contemplating the possibility of attacking her at that…

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 Dupas

Details

AGLC: R v Dupas [2000] VSC 356
Case: [2000] VSC 356
Decision Date: 22 August 2000

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Dupas involved a defendant with a lengthy criminal history involving acts of sexual violence, who was found guilty of murder. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The central issue in the case was the appropriate sentence for the defendant, given his history of violent and sexual offences, and the likelihood of his rehabilitation. The court had to determine whether the defendant posed a significant risk to society and whether a term of imprisonment for life with or without a minimum term was appropriate.

The court considered the defendant's extensive criminal record and the nature of his previous offences. It referenced previous cases such as R v Beckett, R v Denyer, R v Coulston, and R v Lowe to assess the appropriate sentence for the defendant. The court emphasised that the defendant had no significant prospect of rehabilitation and continued to pose a serious risk to society. Given these factors, the court found that the only appropriate sentence was imprisonment for life. However, it decided not to set a minimum term, leaving the determination of the defendant's release to the discretion of the parole board.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to protect society from the defendant's ongoing risk and to provide a sentence commensurate with the gravity of his crimes. The court concluded that the defendant's history of violent and sexual offences, combined with the nature of the current offence, warranted a sentence of life imprisonment. The decision not to set a minimum term reflected the unpredictable nature of the defendant's risk to society and the importance of allowing the parole board flexibility in determining the appropriate time for release.

The final order of the court was that the defendant be sentenced to imprisonment for life, with no minimum term fixed. This decision underscored the court's commitment to public safety and the need to manage the risk posed by the defendant over an indeterminate period. The case serves as a reminder of the importance of considering the full context of an offender's history and the potential risk they pose when determining an appropriate sentence.

Orders