R v Grimmett - [2011] VSC 506

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2011 0063

THE QUEEN

JASON VICTOR GRIMMETT

---

JUDGE:	WEINBERG JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	5, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, & 16 September 2011
DATE OF PLEA:	28 September 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 October 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Grimmett
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 506

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Plea of guilty in presence of jury rejected by Crown - Jury verdict not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter – Intoxication – Female victim bashed and strangled – Relevance for sentencing purposes of prior conviction for intentionally causing injury to female – Relevance of depressive condition rendering imprisonment more burdensome – Second limb of Verdins applied – Sentence 11 years’ imprisonment – Non-parole period of eight years fixed

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms M Williams SC with Ms E H Ruddle	Mr C Hyland, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G A Georgiou with Mr M Stanton	Robert Stary & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Jason Victor Grimmett, after a trial lasting some nine days, you were found guilty of the manslaughter of Janine Kelly at Kensington on 4 July 2010. The maximum sentence for manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment.

You were charged with Ms Kelly’s murder, but acquitted of that offence. You pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the presence of the jury, but the Crown declined to accept that plea. You are nonetheless to be sentenced on the basis that you did plead guilty to manslaughter, and you are entitled to call that plea in aid.

The circumstances surrounding the offence may be briefly stated. You met Ms Kelly at the Union Hotel in Ascot Vale in the early evening of Saturday 3 July 2010. You had not previously known her. Thereafter, the two of you engaged in what was described as flirtatious behaviour. You were both drinking heavily. At various times, tension arose between the two of you, culminating at one point in an incident where you flicked a drink coaster in her direction.

Ms Kelly left the hotel shortly before you did. She had earlier given you a business card with her telephone number on it. You dialled that number from your mobile phone and arranged to go to her home where you anticipated that the two of you would have sex. You were driven to Ms Kelly’s home by taxi.

After your arrival, there was more alcohol consumed. You both went up to her bedroom, and sexual activity took place. You were so drunk that you were unable to maintain an erection. Nonetheless, Ms Kelly asked you to stay the night. You told her that you could not do so because you were married, and had to get home. Previously, whilst at the hotel, you had told Ms Kelly that, although you were married, you were effectively separated from your wife. That was untrue.

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 Grimmett

Details

AGLC: R v Grimmett [2011] VSC 506
Case: [2011] VSC 506
Decision Date: 12 October 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Grimmett involved the defendant, Grimmett, who had pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the presence of a jury, but this plea was rejected by the Crown. The jury ultimately found him not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. The incident involved Grimmett severely assaulting and strangling a female victim, resulting in her death. The sentencing of Grimmett was the primary focus of the court's decision. The legal issues the court had to address were the appropriate sentence for manslaughter, considering Grimmett's prior conviction for intentionally causing injury to a female and his depressive condition that made imprisonment more burdensome for him.

The court considered the principles outlined in Verdins in determining the sentence, applying the second limb which requires the court to consider the circumstances of the offence and the characteristics of the offender. The prior conviction and the depressive condition were taken into account as they significantly affected Grimmett's culpability and the severity of the sentence. After weighing these factors, the court decided that an 11-year imprisonment term was appropriate. The non-parole period was set at eight years, reflecting the court's assessment of the seriousness of the crime and the need for deterrence and protection of the community.

The court's reasoning was that while the offence was grave, involving violent assault and the death of a victim, the specific circumstances surrounding Grimmett's mental health and prior history needed to be factored into the sentencing decision. The court determined that these elements warranted a sentence that was severe enough to reflect the gravity of the crime but also took into account the personal challenges Grimmett faced. The final orders of the court mandated that Grimmett be imprisoned for 11 years, with a non-parole period of eight years, ensuring that the sentence balanced justice for the victim and consideration of Grimmett's individual circumstances.

Orders

Orders of the court

The sentence of this Court is that you be imprisoned for a term of 11 years. I fix a non-parole period of eight years.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.