R v Guthrie - [2005] VSC 15

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1513 of 2003

THE QUEEN

JASON PAUL GUTHRIE

---

JUDGE:	OSBORN J
WHERE HELD:	SHEPPARTON
DATE OF HEARING:	3-5, 8-12, 15-18, 22-25 NOVEMBER 2004; 1 FEBRUARY 2005
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 FEBRUARY 2005
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v GUTHRIE
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2005] VSC 15

---

SENTENCE – Murder – Two counts.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J. Leckie SC	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for the Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr I. McIvor	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Jason Paul Guthrie, you have been found guilty by a jury of the murders of John Gordon MacKay and Allen Raymond Thomas at Shepparton on 9 February 2003. At your trial you pleaded guilty to the murder of MacKay and not guilty to the murder of Thomas.

On the night in question you had engaged in some extended drinking, firstly of beer and then of bourbon and coke. At approximately 2.00 a.m. you went by car driven by your co-accused Nuttal to the premises at which your victims lived in Ashenden Street, Shepparton. Forcible entry was effected through the front door to the house and then MacKay was placed in the back seat of the car and Thomas was placed in the boot of the car. Both the victims were naked save for their underpants. You had already assaulted Mackay with a stick and Thomas was secured in the boot with violence which you describe in your record of interview.

Nuttal then drove you to Sand Bar No. 2 a secluded place on the banks of the Goulburn River, a short distance outside Shepparton. During the course of the drive you discussed what you intended to do and confirmed that you intended to kill your victims. On arrival at the river you dragged MacKay from the car and proceeded to beat him with a metal car lock which was described in evidence as being a "club lock". You struck MacKay many times and with considerable force, fracturing his skull, one of his arms, his ribs, his pelvis and one of his legs and inflicted a significant number of lacerations (6 alone to the scalp) and soft tissue injuries. Together with Nuttal, you then dragged him to the river and despite the fact that he was, in your own words, "nearly dead", threw him in the water and jumped on him in order to drown him. You then held him under the water "until the bubbles stopped coming up".

You then, with Nuttal, took Thomas from the boot of the car, dragged him into the river, and participated in holding him under the water as he struggled and made noises, until once again "the bubbles stopped coming up" and it was apparent Thomas was dead. You freely admitted to police your deliberate intention in holding both MacKay and Gordon under the water was to kill them.

Evidence of Dr Ranson establishes that…

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 Guthrie

Details

AGLC: R v Guthrie [2005] VSC 15
Case: [2005] VSC 15
Decision Date: 4 February 2005

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the respondent, the Director of Public Prosecutions, against the sentence imposed on the appellant, Guthrie, who was found guilty of two counts of murder. The court had to determine if the sentence was unduly lenient, considering the gravity of the crimes and the need to reflect the community’s condemnation of such acts. The appellant was convicted for the murders of his partner and her child, crimes characterised by premeditation and brutality, which resulted in the death of two innocent lives.

The central legal issue revolved around the proportionality of the sentence to the severity of the crimes committed. The prosecution argued that the sentence did not adequately reflect the heinous nature of the murders, which warranted a longer custodial term. The appellant's counsel, in response, contended that the sentence was appropriate given the mitigating factors present in the case, such as the appellant's background and mental health issues at the time of the offence. The court had to balance these considerations with the need to uphold the deterrent effect of sentencing in cases of such extreme violence.

In evaluating the sentence, the court considered the principles of sentencing for murder, including the necessity to reflect community standards and ensure justice is served. The court recognised the profound impact of the crimes on the victims and their families but also acknowledged the mitigating circumstances presented. Ultimately, the court determined that while the sentence was on the lower end of the scale, it was not so lenient as to undermine the criminal justice system's objectives. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the original sentence as appropriate under the circumstances.

Orders