R v Heenan - [2006] VSC 123

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1506 of 2005

THE QUEEN

PETER ALAN HEENAN

---

JUDGE:	NETTLE JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	24 March 2006
DATE OF SENTENCE:	3 April 2006
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Heenan
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 123

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Aggravated burglary - Intentionally causing serious injury – Threat to kill – Assault - Offences committed as part of one incident while prisoner serving a six month sentence of imprisonment by way of Intensive Correction Order – Offences the result of jealousy and anger exacerbated by the excessive consumption of alcohol – Plea of guilty – Limited remorse – Total effective sentence of five years with non-parole period of 30 months.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr D.A. Trapnell	Mr S. Carisbrooke, Acting Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P.J. Morrissey	Theo Magazis & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Peter Alan Heenan, you have pleaded guilty to one count of assaulting Steven Ignatiadis (Count 1); one count of aggravated burglary (Count 2); one count of making a threat to kill Helen Heenan (Count 3); one count of intentionally causing serious injury to Helen Heenan (Count 4); and one count of making a threat to kill Steven Ignatiadis (Count 5).

The facts

The offences arose out of the breakdown of your marriage to Helen Heenan and your jealousy of Steven Ignatiadis.

You first met Ms Heenan some 17 years ago and in the years which followed you married and you had four children together: Peta, born on 10 May 1991, Brittany, born on 9 August 1992, Evelyna, born on 14 January 1994 and Rion, born on 24 July 1995. Over time, however, the relationship deteriorated and, in or about March 2003, Ms Heenan asked you to leave the family home, which you did. For the next five or six months you lived apart, although you visited the children at every chance and you told Ms Heenan that you still loved her and wished to be reunited.

In October 2003 you left the place in which you were then living and moved back to the family home and in March 2004 you and Ms Heenan and the children moved together to premises in Beaconsfield Parade, Middle Park. But the relationship continued to deteriorate and at the end of July 2004 Ms Heenan purchased a residential unit some distance away in Middle Park and with the assistance of her family moved out to the unit with the children.

At first, she did not tell you where she had gone, but a week or so later she telephoned and gave you a contact telephone number. Later still, she told you where she was living with the children, so that you would know their whereabouts, and then over a period of time you and she developed a pattern whereby the children stayed with you each weekend.

At the start of that arrangement,…

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 Heenan

Details

AGLC: R v Heenan [2006] VSC 123
Case: [2006] VSC 123
Decision Date: 3 April 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Regina versus Heenan, the appellant faced sentencing in the Supreme Court of Victoria following a plea of guilty to aggravated burglary, intentionally causing serious injury, threatening to kill, and assault. The offences occurred while Heenan was serving a six-month sentence for another matter via an Intensive Correction Order, and were driven by feelings of jealousy and anger, compounded by excessive alcohol consumption.

The legal issues before the court involved the appropriate sentencing for the aggravated offences, particularly considering the appellant’s history of criminal behaviour, the circumstances under which the offences were committed, and the mitigating factors including his guilty plea and limited remorse. The court had to balance the need for deterrence and denunciation with the potential for rehabilitation, while also considering the totality principle in sentencing.

The Supreme Court of Victoria found that the gravity of the offences warranted a significant custodial sentence. It was noted that Heenan had a history of violence and criminal conduct, which was exacerbated by alcohol on the night of the offences. Despite his guilty plea and some remorse, the court concluded that the seriousness of the crimes and the need to protect the community outweighed the mitigating factors. The court sentenced Heenan to a total effective term of five years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 30 months, ensuring that the sentence was proportionate to the gravity of the offences committed.

Orders