R v Giles - [2014] VSC 210

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0121 of 2012

THE QUEEN

GARRETH GILES

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	Trial: 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 30 September; 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, October 2013 Plea: 25 November 2013; 7 February 2014
DATE OF SENTENCE:	30 April 2014
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Giles
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2014] VSC 210

---

Murder – Theft – Arson – Trial - Relatively young offender (24 years at time of offence) – Murder plan found on computer – Motiveless crime – Desecration of body – Lacking in empathy – Exceedingly limited remorse – Potential danger to community – 18 year old co‑offender unfit to stand trial – special hearing for co‑offender.
Sentence: 26 years’ imprisonment, minimum of 21 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr S Johns	Rob Stary Lawyers

HER HONOUR:

Garreth Giles, you were convicted by a jury on 8 October 2013 of the murder of Russell Hammond at Drysdale on 5 January 2012. That same jury also convicted you of two counts of theft: one relating to various items taken from the home of Russell Hammond; the second relating to his Mercedes Benz motor vehicle, and finally, a count of arson which occurred early the next morning when you set fire to his Mercedes. You have no prior convictions and you have been in custody since 11 January 2012 when you were arrested for these offences.

You committed these offences in company with Christopher Leigh Coulter. Coulter was dealt with by Hollingworth J for the same charges of which you have been convicted. Coulter was found unfit to be tried by a jury on 10 September 2013 and, after a special hearing conducted under Part 3 of the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997, he was found to have committed all of the offences charged, namely, one charge of murder, one charge of arson and two charges of theft. Her Honour subsequently determined that, there being no practical alternative to imprisonment and no services suitable or available in an ‘appropriate place’ as specified in the Act, a nominal term of 25 years should be imposed. No review period was specified.

At the time of the offending you were 24 years of age and are currently 26. Your co‑offender, Christopher Coulter, was aged 18 at the time of the offending. He was assessed as functioning within the intellectual disability range, with an overall performance better than only 0.2% of his same aged peers.

The victim in this matter, Russell Hammond, was the oldest of three children and was 49 years of age, almost 50. You originally met Mr Hammond some years earlier when you were both involved in a work for the dole scheme, which he had begun after his return from Japan. You became the beneficiary of his generosity when…

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 Giles

Details

AGLC: R v Giles [2014] VSC 210
Case: [2014] VSC 210
Decision Date: 30 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appellant, a 24-year-old man, was charged with the murder of a 70-year-old woman, who was his neighbour. The woman's burnt remains were found in her home, which had been set alight. The appellant was also charged with theft and arson. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The appellant pleaded not guilty to murder, guilty to theft and arson. The jury found the appellant guilty of murder.

The legal issues the court needed to address included the appropriate sentence for the appellant, considering the gravity of the offence and the appellant's age. The court had to weigh the aggravating factors, such as the premeditation of the crime, the lack of motive, the desecration of the victim's body, and the appellant's lack of empathy and remorse, against the mitigating factors, such as the appellant's young age and the fact that he had no prior criminal record.

The court found that the murder was premeditated, with a plan found on the appellant's computer. The court considered the appellant's lack of remorse and empathy, and his potential danger to the community. The court also considered the appellant's age and the fact that he had no prior criminal record. Ultimately, the court found that the appropriate sentence was 26 years' imprisonment, with a minimum of 21 years before the appellant could apply for parole.

The court also held a special hearing for the co-offender, an 18-year-old who was found unfit to stand trial. The court made orders for the co-offender's care and treatment.

Orders