R v Heitanen - [2011] VSC 404

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 0060 of 2011

THE QUEEN

GARY HEITANEN

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Mildura
DATE OF HEARING:	22, 23 August 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	24 August 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Heitanen
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 404

---

One punch Manslaughter – Early Plea – Remorse – Sentence 10 years with a minimum 7 years. Section 6AAA would have been 12 years with 9 year minimum.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown (Plea) (Sentence)	Mr K. Gilligan Mr M. Thackaberry	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused (Plea) (Sentence)	Mr S. Robertson Mr H. Middleton	Martin, Irwin & Richards Lawyers Mildura

HER HONOUR:

Gary Heitanen, you have pleaded guilty to one count of manslaughter being that at Nangiloc on the twenty sixth day of January 2011 you did kill David Rowe.

You are currently 39 years of age. The man you killed, David Rowe, was 40 years of age at the time of his death, having been born in 1970.

You have pleaded guilty to the offence and you indicated that plea at an early stage. You are entitled to and will receive an appropriate and significant reduction in your sentence on the basis of your plea of guilty, the early stage at which you indicated that plea and the matter of remorse to which I shall refer later.

You have a long and unfortunate history in terms of your involvement with the criminal law, your first recorded offences occurring in August of 1990 in Gosford Local Court in NSW. Between then and July of 1991 you had acquired seven court appearances all at that court in relation to either offensive language, possession of a prohibited drug, administering or cultivating of a prohibited drug, and for which you were, on each occasion, fined.

You continued your petty crime with a stealing offence in 1991 for which you received a good behaviour bond and driving whilst unlicensed in 1994. But then in August 1999 at the Wyong Local Court in New South Wales you were convicted of malicious damage, breach of Community Service Order, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and assault for which you received sentences of six months’ periodic detention on each charge to be served concurrently with each other.

Between December 1999 and May 2001 you were involved in some driving licence offences, including while disqualified and larceny for which you received a total of four months’ imprisonment in May of 2001.

On 5 July 2001 at the Wyong Local Court in New South Wales you were convicted of a charge of malicious wounding for which you received 20 months’ imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 15 months. This offence involved the use of a knife by you and a stabbing wound to the chest/abdomen area of the other man, you contested that matter on the basis that you were acting in self defence which was rejected by the court.…

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 Heitanen

Details

AGLC: R v Heitanen [2011] VSC 404
Case: [2011] VSC 404
Decision Date: 24 August 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Heitanen, the respondent was charged with manslaughter following an incident in which the respondent struck the victim, resulting in the victim's death. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the respondent pleaded guilty to the offence of manslaughter. The central issue before the court was the appropriate sentence to be imposed on the respondent, taking into account the factors relevant to sentencing for manslaughter and the impact of the early guilty plea.

The court considered the principles of sentencing for manslaughter, focusing on the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation. The respondent's early guilty plea and expression of remorse were significant mitigating factors. However, the court also noted the severity of the offence and the need to ensure that the sentence reflected the gravity of the crime. The court weighed these factors and determined that a sentence of 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years was appropriate. The court noted that had the respondent not entered an early guilty plea, a sentence under section 6AAA of the Sentencing Act would have resulted in a sentence of 12 years with a non-parole period of 9 years.

The court's reasoning was grounded in the specific circumstances of the case, including the respondent's remorse and the impact of the early guilty plea. The court found that the mitigating factors were significant but did not outweigh the need to ensure an appropriate level of denunciation and deterrence. The court emphasised that while the sentence was severe, it was necessary to reflect the gravity of the offence and to uphold the principles of justice. The final orders of the court were that the respondent be sentenced to 10 years imprisonment with a non-parole period of 7 years.

Orders