R v Flower - [2005] VSC 462

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1406 of 2005

THE QUEEN

PHILLIP JAMES FLOWER

---

JUDGE:	Hollingworth J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	16 November 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 December 2005
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 462

---

Criminal law – sentence – unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter - robbery – accused grabbed handbag from elderly female victim – victim fell and hit head – victim later died from head injury – guilty plea - accused heroin addict – no prior convictions for robbery or violence – genuine remorse - accused now suffering from paranoia and psychosis – longer than usual parole period appropriate - sentenced to 8 years imprisonment for manslaughter – sentenced to 12 months for robbery, to be served concurrently – non-parole period of 5 years

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr T Gyorffy	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G Meredith	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service

HER HONOUR:

Phillip James Flower, you have pleaded guilty to manslaughter and robbery. It is now my duty to sentence you.

The offences

On the last Wednesday of every month, Beryl Bloomfield and her friend, Anne Reid, would go into Croydon to attend a Probus meeting. On 28 April 2004, their Probus meeting ended around 11:30am. After that they had lunch at a café in the Arndale Shopping Centre and Mrs Bloomfield bought herself a cardigan.

After leaving the shopping centre, the two women walked a short distance to the Main Street shopping strip. Shortly after 1.00pm, Mrs Bloomfield withdrew $2,000 in cash from the Westpac bank. She went to a nearby menswear store and bought a cardigan and a pair of trousers for her husband. Around 2:00pm, she withdrew another $2,000 from the ANZ bank.

Mrs Bloomfield and Mrs Reid started to walk along Main Street, back towards Mrs Reid’s car. Before reaching Mt Dandenong Road, Mrs Bloomfield stopped at a fruit and vegetable shop to buy some tomatoes.

You and your partner, Claudine Davis, were in the vicinity of the shopping centre that day. You had gone to get your daily methadone from a nearby chemist. Ms Davis saw Mrs Bloomfield pay for her purchase in the fruit and vegetable shop; she pointed Mrs Bloomfield out to you as someone carrying a large amount of cash.

After Mrs Bloomfield bought the tomatoes, she and Mrs Reid walked down Mt Dandenong Road, arm in arm, giving each other support. Mrs Bloomfield was standing closest to the road, holding her handbag in her right hand. You approached them from behind. You grabbed Mrs Bloomfield’s handbag fairly hard and, in doing so, caused her to fall to the ground. You took the handbag and ran off. Mrs Bloomfield hit her head on the grassy ground near the footpath and temporarily lost consciousness.

You ran off into a nearby park, pursued by a male witness. During the chase, you dropped the handbag and removed two jumpers in an attempt…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read R v Flower and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2005] VSC 462
Decision Date: 8 December 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Flower involved the defendant, Flower, who was charged with manslaughter and robbery following an incident where he grabbed a handbag from an elderly female, resulting in her death from a head injury. Flower pleaded guilty to both charges and the matter was heard in a relevant Australian court. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for Flower, considering the nature of the crime, the defendant’s background, and the circumstances surrounding the incident.

The primary legal issue before the court was the appropriate sentencing for Flower, particularly the length of the non-parole period, given the factors such as the unlawful and dangerous nature of the act, Flower's lack of prior convictions for similar crimes, his status as a heroin addict, and his genuine remorse. The court also had to consider Flower’s current mental health issues, including paranoia and psychosis, which were exacerbated by his drug addiction. These factors were weighed against the severity of the crime and the need for deterrence and rehabilitation.

The court found that while the act was unlawful and dangerous, Flower’s lack of prior convictions and his genuine remorse were mitigating factors. However, the dangerous nature of the act and the need for general deterrence warranted a longer than usual non-parole period. Taking into account Flower's current mental health issues and the fact that he had no prior convictions for robbery or violence, the court sentenced him to eight years imprisonment for manslaughter and twelve months for robbery, with both sentences to be served concurrently. The non-parole period was set at five years.

In conclusion, the court ordered that Flower be imprisoned for a total of eight years for manslaughter and twelve months for robbery, with the sentences to run concurrently. The non-parole period for the manslaughter charge was five years, reflecting the court's consideration of both the severity of the crime and the mitigating factors presented.

Orders