R v Guthrie and Watt - [2003] VSC 323

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1483 of 2001

THE QUEEN

CRAIG ANTHONY GUTHRIE and
PAUL GRAEME WATT

---

JUDGE:	REDLICH J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 January 2003 to 4 February 2003
DATE OF SENTENCE:	4 September 2003
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Guthrie and Watt
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2003] VSC 323

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Attempted murder – Pre-concert – Aiding and abetting –Proof of adverse facts – Whether lesser penalty for aider and abettor.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr B. Kayser	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused Guthrie	Mr. A. Jackson	Traill & Associates
For the Accused Watt	Mr A. Shwartz	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Craig Anthony Guthrie and Paul Graeme Watt, together with Nicholas Allan Denson each faced a presentment containing a count of attempted murder of Sean Dertilis at Serpentine in the State of Victoria on the 1^st day of March 2001 and alternative counts.

Following a trial which commenced on 16 January 2003, a jury on 4 February 2003 found Denson not guilty on all counts and found Guthrie and Watt guilty of attempted murder.

Prior to the commencement of their trial another co-accused, Gerard William Wainwright, was arraigned and pleaded guilty to one count of intentionally causing serious injury to Dertilis. Wainwright was sentenced by his Honour Justice Bongiorno at the Bendigo Sittings of the Supreme Court on 5 September 2002 to be imprisoned for the term of three years, with two years of that term to be served before becoming eligible for parole, this sentence being wholly suspended for three years. Before being sentenced Wainwright gave an undertaking to the court to give evidence at this trial in accordance with his statement of 15 March 2001 and his Records of Interviews of 8 March and 15 March 2001 respectively.

The Facts
Background

The events relating to the attempted murder of Sean Dertilis at Serpentine on 1 March 2003 began on the evening of 28 February 2003, when the victim, Dertilis, attended at Flat 1, 61 Wade Street, Golden Square. This was the address of Watt and Wainwright. Also present at that address on that night were Guthrie, Nicholas Denson and several other persons.

Some weeks prior to 28 February 2001, Dertilis and Wainwright had been involved in a burglary on a farmhouse north of Serpentine belonging to an associate of Mr Dertilis’. Three firearms were stolen. Early on the evening of 28 February 2001, Gary Martin, the victim of the burglary, contacted Dertilis by phone and informed him that he knew that he (Dertilis) was responsible for the theft. Martin also told him that the police were involved and that the police were in possession of two of the three firearms stolen. Martin told Dertilis that he wanted the third firearm returned. In this telephone conversation, Dertilis confirmed to Martin that he had been involved in the burglary. The…

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 Guthrie and Watt 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: [2003] VSC 323
Decision Date: 4 September 2003

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Guthrie and Watt involved the defendants, Guthrie and Watt, who were charged with attempted murder. The dispute arose from their involvement in an alleged plot to murder an individual. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Australia. The central legal issues the court had to address were whether Guthrie and Watt were guilty of attempted murder and whether there was sufficient evidence to establish their respective roles in the pre-concerted plan. Additionally, the court had to determine if there was a legal basis for imposing a lesser penalty on the aider and abettor compared to the principal offender.

The court meticulously examined the evidence presented to establish the involvement of both Guthrie and Watt in the pre-planned act of attempted murder. It considered the roles each played in the conspiracy and the extent to which they aided and abetted the principal offender. The court assessed whether the proof of adverse facts was adequately established to hold each defendant accountable for their respective roles. Furthermore, the court delved into the legal principles surrounding the sentencing of aiders and abettors in cases of attempted murder, weighing the arguments for and against imposing a lesser penalty on those who assist but do not directly commit the crime.

In its judgment, the court concluded that both Guthrie and Watt were indeed guilty of attempted murder. The evidence was deemed sufficient to establish their participation in the pre-concerted plot. The court found that Guthrie, as the principal offender, bore the primary responsibility for the crime, while Watt played a secondary role as an aider and abettor. However, the court held that there was no legal precedent or basis to impose a lesser penalty on Watt solely on the grounds of his lesser involvement. The court emphasised the need for consistency in sentencing to uphold the principles of justice and deterrence in criminal law. The final orders of the court reflected the guilty verdicts and the respective penalties imposed on Guthrie and Watt, taking into account their roles in the attempted murder plot.

Orders