R v Field - [2021] VSC 134

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2020 0331

THE QUEEN
v
NICHOLAS JOHN FIELD	Accused

---

JUDGE:	TAYLOR J
WHERE HELD:	Geelong
DATE OF HEARING:	5 March 2021
DATE OF SENTENCE:	29 March 2021
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Field
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2021] VSC 134

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty – Offender ingested magic mushrooms – Hallucinogen had unexpected effect – Offender went to home of grandparents – Offender pushed grandmother to floor and kicked her to the abdomen – Deceased later died of abdominal injuries – Genuine Remorse - General Deterrence – Denunciation – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Sentence of seven and a half years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of four years and nine months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms R Harper	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P A Stefanovic	Ben von Einem & Associates

HER HONOUR:

Nicholas Field, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Beryl Field by unlawful and dangerous act.

The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 25 years’ imprisonment.

Summary of Offending

In the late afternoon of Saturday 4 July 2020 you and your partner attended a birthday celebration for your brother at his Bell Park house. A central feature of that celebration was the consumption of magic mushrooms, which contain the hallucinogen psilocin and/or psilocybin.

Your brother prepared the mushrooms, grinding and weighing portions into individual glasses. He measured three and a half grams for the men and two grams for the women. He added lemon juice before leaving the mixture to soak for 15 minutes, a process known as ‘Lemon Tek’ and designed to enhance the effect of the mushrooms.

Whilst waiting during this quarter hour, you ate about five dried magic mushroom stalks and two dried magic mushroom heads.

At about 5.45pm cold water was added to the glasses. The three male and three female participants then consumed the mushrooms. The onset of the hallucinogenic effect was quite rapid.

At about 6.30pm, your group of six went for an hour long walk to a nearby park. To the others you appeared to be quite disorientated. You lagged behind the group, necessitating them stopping and retrieving you. You told the others that they were ‘shifty’ and ‘up to something’. You also, uncharacteristically, spoke of the trauma you had experienced as a child.

Upon return to your brother’s house at about 7.30pm, you and one other man of the group consumed a second magic mushroom drink. It was prepared by him. About three grams of the ground dried mushrooms were put into each glass and soaked in lemon juice and hot water for about five minutes before consumption.

The left over magic mushrooms were later analysed by police and found to contain psilocin and/or psilocybin.

Half an hour later, at about 8.00pm, you became emotional and restless. You left your brother’s house alone and on foot. You did not thereafter respond to…

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 Field

Details

AGLC: R v Field [2021] VSC 134
Case: [2021] VSC 134
Decision Date: 29 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Field involved the defendant, who pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his grandmother. The incident occurred after the defendant ingested magic mushrooms, which had an unexpected and severe effect on him. Under the influence of the hallucinogen, he went to the home of his grandparents where he physically assaulted his grandmother, causing injuries that led to her death. The court had to determine the appropriate sentence for the defendant considering the nature of the offence, the mitigating factors, and the principles of sentencing.

The legal issues before the court were whether the defendant's ingestion of magic mushrooms constituted a partial defence to the charge, the degree of moral culpability, and the appropriate sentence given the defendant's genuine remorse, good prospects of rehabilitation, and the need for general deterrence and denunciation. The court had to balance these considerations against the seriousness of the offence and the harm caused to the victim.

The court found that while the ingestion of magic mushrooms was a significant mitigating factor, it did not absolve the defendant of his criminal responsibility. However, the court accepted that the defendant did not have the requisite intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The court also noted the defendant's genuine remorse, his good prospects for rehabilitation, and the need for the sentence to serve as a deterrent and a denunciation of such violent conduct. After weighing all these factors, the court sentenced the defendant to seven and a half years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of four years and nine months.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a sentence of seven and a half years’ imprisonment for the offence of manslaughter, with a non-parole period of four years and nine months. The defendant was also subject to standard conditions applicable to sentenced prisoners, including supervision and rehabilitation programs aimed at addressing the underlying issues that contributed to the offence.

Orders