R v Hastings - [2015] VSC 444

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2014 0151

THE QUEEN

SHAREE JANE HASTINGS

---

JUDGE:	T. FORREST J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATES OF HEARING:	20 August 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 August 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Hastings
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 444, First Revision: 8 September 2015; paragraph [14]

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Recklessly cause serious injury– Joint criminal enterprise – Use of an offensive weapon –Early plea of guilty – Remorse inferred - Utilitarian discount – Prisoner suffers Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder – Childhood abuse - Sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment within a minimum period before parole eligibility of 2 years 3 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr A Grant	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms N Karapanagiotidis Ms C Lynch	Matthews White & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

In 2013 you were living in a house at 4 Unity Court Warburton. You were a friend of Debbie Smith who had lived next door a number 6 with her partner Barrie Robinson. Ms Smith had been involved in a serious motor vehicle accident in August 2013. During her rehabilitation you assisted Mr Robinson with her care. As I understand it, this was a commercial arrangement wherein Mr Robinson provided you with a vehicle to assist you in visiting Ms Smith in hospital rehabilitation centre, and subsequently taking Ms Smith to medical appointments. You were also granted access to Debbie Smith’s debit card bank account to purchase personal items for her and petrol for the car.

Ms Smith was discharged from rehabilitation in late October 2013. She discovered that approximately $4000 was missing from her bank account. She challenged you and you replied “I fucked up”. You offered to make some restitution, although this came to nothing. Mr Robinson, by this time no longer Ms Smith’s partner, agreed to provide Debbie Smith with $4000 to replace the money you had stolen. In Mr Robinson’s mind, this meant your debt to Ms Smith was now transferred to him.

Ms Smith left Victoria in late 2013 and you had no further contact with her, however, you remained in contact with Mr Robinson who continued either to be your next door neighbour or your landlord. On the evidence, I am unable to determine whether a sexual relationship developed between you and Mr Robinson. Mr Robinson told his sister at Christmas 2013 that he was in such a relationship with you. You deny it. Mr Robinson’s current diminished cognitive functioning means that he cannot provide evidence. It is clear that for a period of time you lived at Mr Robinson’s house.

Regardless of whether or not there was a sexual aspect to your relationship with Mr Robinson, acrimony developed between you. Mr Robinson wanted $4000 from you and he wanted what he regarded as his car back. At the start of February 2014 Mr Robinson told you that you must leave his house and leave 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 Hastings 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: [2015] VSC 444
Decision Date: 26 August 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hastings, the appellant stood trial in the Supreme Court of Victoria for causing serious injury to a person, an offence under section 19 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic). The incident occurred during a confrontation involving an offensive weapon, where the appellant was part of a joint criminal enterprise. Hastings entered an early plea of guilty, which was a significant factor considered during sentencing. Additionally, the court took into account the appellant's expression of remorse, inferred from his early guilty plea, and his current suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, exacerbated by a history of childhood abuse.

The primary legal issues before the court were the appropriate sentencing principles to apply, particularly in light of the early guilty plea, the nature of the joint criminal enterprise, and the appellant's personal circumstances, including his mental health and background. The court had to balance the severity of the offence against mitigating factors such as the plea of guilty and personal hardships, while ensuring the sentence reflected the need for deterrence and protection of the community.

The court found that while the offence was serious, the early guilty plea and the appellant's demonstrated remorse warranted a discount. Additionally, the court recognised the appellant's current mental health issues and his troubled past as mitigating factors. Despite these considerations, the court emphasised the need to ensure public safety and the gravity of the weapon-related assault. Ultimately, the court sentenced Hastings to four years' imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and three months, reflecting the balance between punishment, deterrence, and the appellant's mitigating circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant, Hastings, be remanded into custody to serve a total sentence of four years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of two years and three months. The court's decision considered the complex interplay of mitigating and aggravating factors, resulting in a sentence that aimed to balance justice for the victim, public safety, and the appellant's personal circumstances.

Orders