R v Gould - [2007] VSC 419

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1401 of 2007

THE QUEEN

DARREN PAUL GOULD

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 September 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 October 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Darren Paul Gould
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 419

---

Criminal Law – Sentence – Manslaughter – Single stab wound to back of shoulder – Death caused by massive blood loss resulting in multiple organ failure.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr M. Lincoln	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr J. Saunders	Hale and Wakeling Barristers and Solicitors

HIS HONOUR:

Darren Paul Gould, on Wednesday 3 October 2007, after a trial lasting eight days, you were convicted at the Supreme Court at Melbourne of the manslaughter of Michael Brown. You were acquitted on both murder and defensive homicide.

The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years imprisonment.

Michael Brown died on 25 November 2005 as a result of having been stabbed by you on 20 November 2005. The 20^th of November 2005 was a Sunday. You and the deceased and other friends and acquaintances had spent a good part of the day drinking together. Michael Brown, when sober, was highly regarded by his friends. He was a very different and difficult person when he had been drinking, and often became violent and irrational. That was his state on 20 November 2005. In addition to his problems with drink, he was also obsessed with his former girlfriend, Amy Fowler.

About the time of his death he had taken to accusing his friends, including you, of talking behind his back. He also alleged that you and others had been engaged in a sexual relationship with Amy Fowler. On 20 November 2005 drinking had started at 34A Aberdeen Road, Macleod, where the deceased had lived with the brothers, Robert, Lance and Peter Venn, and Lonnie Davis. The deceased was due to move out and live with his brother, but had stayed overnight at Aberdeen Road.

The drinking started reasonably early in the day and involved Robert and Lance Venn, Lonnie Davis and probably Amy Fowler. About midday you and Slav Monev came to the house and joined in the drinking. Amy Fowler had left by then. Peter Venn, who had weekend access to his daughter, asked the group to leave. In response to your invitation, the group went to your home at 1 Portree Street, Macleod. The deceased had been drinking quickly and was becoming increasingly paranoid about Amy Fowler. He was aggressive to all the members of the group. He continued to drink when at your house and probably consumed well over a “slab” (24 cans) of beer on the day.

Later in the day, probably between 9.00 and 10.00 p.m. (although in your evidence you put it much earlier), the deceased became much more aggressive towards you and you asked Slav Monev and Lance Venn to remove him…

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 Gould

Details

AGLC: R v Gould [2007] VSC 419
Case: [2007] VSC 419
Decision Date: 26 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Gould involved the appellant, who was convicted of manslaughter following the death of the victim caused by a single stab wound to the back of the victim's shoulder. The incident occurred during an altercation, and the appellant was subsequently charged and found guilty. The appeal was centred on the sentencing aspect, specifically the length and appropriateness of the custodial sentence imposed.

The legal issues before the court included whether the sentence was excessive given the circumstances and whether the court had appropriately considered the mitigating factors presented during the sentencing hearing. The appellant argued that the sentence should be reduced due to the absence of premeditation and the influence of alcohol at the time of the offence. The prosecution maintained that the sentence was appropriate given the severity of the injury and the resulting death of the victim.

The court carefully considered the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. It was noted that the stab wound, though seemingly minor, led to a massive blood loss and subsequent multiple organ failure, causing the victim's death. The court acknowledged the absence of premeditation but emphasised the gravity of the act and its fatal outcome. The court held that the sentence was proportionate to the severity of the crime and took into account the mitigating factors, but ultimately found no basis to reduce the sentence. The appeal was dismissed, and the original sentence was upheld.

No additional orders were made by the court beyond the dismissal of the appeal. The appellant's sentence remains as originally imposed.

Orders