R v E J C - [2008] VSC 474

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1534 of 2007

THE QUEEN

EJC

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	7 November 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	7 November 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v EJC
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 474

---

Sentence – Manslaughter – young offender – circumstances of offence – good prospects of rehabilitation – Youth Justice Centre order.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr. P. Rose SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr. L. Hartnett	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service

HIS HONOUR:

EJC you have been found guilty by a jury of the manslaughter of Ryan John (“Jack”) Ellis, who died at the Alfred Hospital on 17 October 2006 in consequence of head injuries received early on the morning of 15 October 2006.

On Saturday 14 October 2006 you had attended an 18^th birthday party at the premises of Giles Plumbing in Stawell. That party was attended predominately by teenagers. A disco was provided within the main shed at the premises, together with food. Alcohol was allowed on a bring your own basis. It is apparent that most of the more than 100 attendees, did make arrangements for alcohol to be brought for their consumption. The teenagers drinking at the party ranged from the age of 14 upwards. Despite this it appears that apart from one or two scuffles, the mood within the premises was generally happy as the night progressed. This said there was at least one incident in which two young men went outside and a punch was thrown and received, but that seems to have resolved matters as between those directly concerned.

At 1:00 am the disco was turned off and the lights in the shed turned on, signalling the end of the party. A short time afterwards you went outside to look for your brother. There was no adult supervision outside the premises. On moving through the main gate, it seems you were confronted with abuse from Jack Ellis. Both you and he were 17 and had played junior football together. There was no longstanding enmity between you, but it appears he was upset as a result of an incident some three weeks earlier at another party, in the course of which he believed you had hit a friend of his.

Whether for this reason or some other reason, he abused you in the strongest terms, calling you a “cunt”, “a cunt of a bloke”, a “hero” and a “moron”.

Your response was to ask whether he wanted to come out on the road.

He responded by saying something to the effect that you were only interested in starting fights and he then continued to abuse you in foul and strong language.

Some four of the immediately surrounding onlookers expected this abuse to provoke a fight.

Others present describe Ellis as being very angry.

In the event you were provoked by the tone and terms of…

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 E J C

Details

AGLC: R v E J C [2008] VSC 474
Case: [2008] VSC 474
Decision Date: 7 November 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The court considered the sentencing of a young offender who had been convicted of manslaughter. The offender, referred to as EJC, had a relatively clean criminal record and the court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that would balance the need for punishment and deterrence with the prospects of rehabilitation. The matter was heard in the Children's Court of Victoria.

The legal issues centred on the principles of sentencing for young offenders and the appropriate weight to be given to the circumstances of the offence and the offender's potential for rehabilitation. The court needed to decide whether the offence warranted a custodial sentence or if a non-custodial option, such as a Youth Justice Centre order, would be more appropriate. The court also had to consider the Sentencing Act 1991 and any relevant case law that provided guidance on sentencing young offenders.

The court concluded that, given the offender's age, the relatively minor role in the offence, and the positive prospects for rehabilitation, a Youth Justice Centre order was the most appropriate sentence. The court emphasised the importance of rehabilitation and the potential for the offender to lead a law-abiding life in the future. The court noted that the seriousness of the offence was somewhat mitigated by the offender's age and the lack of prior criminal history. The order was designed to provide the necessary support and guidance to the offender, with the aim of preventing reoffending and promoting rehabilitation.

The court ordered that EJC be subject to a Youth Justice Centre order for a period of two years, with conditions aimed at ensuring the offender's rehabilitation and reintegration into the community.

Orders