R v Harmer - [2004] VSC 371

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1488 of 2003

THE QUEEN

JULIE ELIZABETH HARMER

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATES OF HEARING:	1 DECEMBER 2003; 5 APRIL; 11 JUNE; 19 AUGUST 2004
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 AUGUST 2004
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v HARMER
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2004] VSC 371	1^st Revision 30/9/04

---

Sentence – Intentionally cause injury (three counts) – Assaults against Youth Residential Centre personnel – History of spontaneous violence – Youthful offender with borderline personality disorder – Need for specific and general deterrence and targetted rehabilitation – Subject to Integrated Community Management Plan on release – Total effective sentence of 15 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms G. Cannon	Kay Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms J. Grubissa and Mr M. White	Grubissa White & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Julia Elizabeth Harmer, you have pleaded guilty to three counts of intentionally causing injury. Each of these assaults occurred at the Parkville Youth Residential Centre where you had been placed on 7 February 2003. Each of your victims was a staff member at the institution.

The first of these offences occurred on 8 February. It followed a conversation on the previous evening in which you had remarked to fellow inmates: "I want to know what it's like to stab someone and what it would feel like." .

At about 11 a.m. On 8 February you, and a number of inmates were in the kitchen of what is known as the Cullity Unit. Also present were two staff members, Patricia McDonald and Patrick Moffatt. Ms McDonald had earlier assisted you in obtaining clothes and toiletries and setting up your room. Whilst she was stirring soup, you requested a knife to make a salami sandwich and Ms McDonald handed you a knife from the bench. About 30 seconds later, when she had her back to you speaking to other residents, you raised the knife and stabbed her in the back in the area of the right shoulder. Ms McDonald felt like something heavy had fallen on her and she was forced forward against the stove. Later she felt intense pain as if her back was on fire. Meanwhile, Patrick Moffatt wrestled with you grabbing your wrist with both his hands as you attempted to push the knife towards him. He eventually twisted your wrist and you dropped the knife. You then remarked: "I'm sorry. I'm sorry, they told me to hurt you." Mr Moffatt initially stood on the knife before it was retrieved by one of the residents. The knife itself had a blade of 15 to 20 centimetres in length. The tip had been removed for safety reasons.

You were taken into the courtyard and appeared to be quite stunned. Ms McDonald collapsed and was ultimately conveyed by ambulance to the Royal Melbourne Hospital. A five millimetre abrasion to the skin surface was noted and she was given painkillers.

In…

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 Harmer

Details

AGLC: R v Harmer [2004] VSC 371
Case: [2004] VSC 371
Decision Date: 27 August 2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Harmer, the defendant was convicted on three counts of intentionally causing injury to personnel at a youth residential centre. The defendant, a young person with a history of spontaneous violence and a diagnosis of borderline personality disorder, had attacked three staff members at the centre. The case was heard by the court which was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that balanced the principles of specific and general deterrence, as well as targeted rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the defendant’s compliance with an Integrated Community Management Plan, which would be implemented upon his release.

The court identified several key legal issues, including the nature and severity of the offences, the defendant's personal circumstances, and the need for both specific and general deterrence. Additionally, the court needed to weigh the rehabilitative potential of the defendant against the necessity to protect the community. The court also considered the effectiveness of the Integrated Community Management Plan in addressing the defendant’s underlying issues and preventing future offending.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged the seriousness of the assaults, noting the defendant's history of violence and the impact on the victims. However, the court also recognised the defendant's youth, mental health condition, and potential for rehabilitation. After considering these factors, the court determined that a total effective sentence of 15 months was appropriate, taking into account the defendant's compliance with the Integrated Community Management Plan. This sentence aimed to achieve both specific deterrence for the defendant and general deterrence for the community, while also providing an opportunity for targeted rehabilitation.

The court ordered that the defendant be sentenced to a total effective term of imprisonment of 15 months, to be served in accordance with the Integrated Community Management Plan upon his release. This plan was designed to address the defendant's specific needs and reduce the likelihood of reoffending.

Orders