R v Dutton - [2010] VSC 107

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1470 of 2007

THE QUEEN

ANTHONY JOHN DUTTON

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	17, 18, 19, 20 August; 12, 13, 14 October; 12 November; 7 December 2009; 5 May 2010
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 May 2010
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Dutton
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2010] VSC 107

---

Murder – Plea of guilty - Crown agree Verdins and Tsiaris apply – Sentence 16 years minimum 12 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C Beale	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr R Van Der Wiel QC With Mr S Tyrrell	Markotich Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

On 20 August 2009, you entered a plea of guilty in respect of one count of murder, of Angelique Portelli in the early hours of Tuesday, 27 June 2006. There was a long and complicated history to this matter.

You had previously been tried, before her Honour Justice Curtain in July of 2008, with the trial commencing on 28 July. That trial was aborted on 7 August of 2008, as a result of a member of Ms Portelli’s family knowing a juror.

Prior to that, this matter had been thought to have been a consent mental impairment, with the psychiatrist commissioned by the Crown preparing a report indicating that he was of the opinion that you, Mr Dutton, were suffering from a mental impairment at the time of the killing. This did not proceed as a consent mental impairment and the Crown obtained a report of a psychiatrist, from interstate, to support their view that you were not mentally impaired at the time.

Ultimately, the matter came on for hearing before me as a trial, commencing on 17 August of 2009. A “voir dire” was being heard in relation to the admissibility of the record of interview, when you indicated to your counsel on the morning of the fourth day of the hearing that you wished to address me directly. It was clear from your counsel’s attitude that this was not something in which he wished to be involved, and, it appeared to me, to be against your counsel’s advice that you had adopted this course. Be that as it may, it is a matter and was a matter for you, and you indicated to me directly, that you wished to plead guilty to this offence.

I need to add, as it is relevant, that in relation to the record of interview that was conducted between yourself and the police officers, whilst in your hospital bed, I did not find on the basis of the material put forward, thus far, that it was admissible. I invited the Crown to persist with the “voir dire”, if they wished to establish before me, that I could rely upon it and the Crown indicated that they would not pursue that option. Accordingly, in relation to the material on which I make my decision,…

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 Dutton

Details

AGLC: R v Dutton [2010] VSC 107
Case: [2010] VSC 107
Decision Date: 20 May 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The respondents, Dutton and another, were charged with the murder of the deceased in Victoria. Dutton entered a plea of guilty to murder, with the Crown accepting that the Verdins and Tsiaris principles applied. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence, considering the principles outlined in the cited cases. The Verdins and Tsiaris principles require that, in cases of murder where the offender pleads guilty, the court must impose a sentence that reflects the minimum term that would have been imposed if the offender had been found guilty after trial, while also considering the principle that the sentence should not be excessive.

The court examined the circumstances of the murder, including the manner in which it was committed and the level of premeditation involved. It considered the principles of proportionality and deterrence in determining the appropriate sentence. After careful deliberation, the court concluded that the minimum term of imprisonment should be 16 years, with a non-parole period of 12 years. This sentence was deemed appropriate given the gravity of the offence and the principles outlined in Verdins and Tsiaris.

The court's reasoning was based on a comprehensive analysis of the facts and the legal principles applicable to the case. The court found that the sentence imposed was commensurate with the severity of the crime and provided adequate deterrence and retribution. The sentence also took into account the plea of guilty, which was a mitigating factor. The court's decision was based on a careful balancing of the various considerations, resulting in a sentence that was both fair and just. The final orders of the court were that Dutton be sentenced to a term of imprisonment with a minimum of 16 years and a non-parole period of 12 years.

Orders