R v Henderson - [2015] VSC 653

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2013 0190

THE QUEEN

JOEL PARKER HENDERSON

---

JUDGE:	BONGIORNO JA
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	6 November 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	13 November 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Henderson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 653

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Joint Enterprise – Acquired brain Injury – Impulsive and uncontrolled behaviour – Psychiatric condition – Comparison with co—offender – Protection of the community – 24 years imprisonment; n.p.p of 20 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C Dane QC with Ms M E O’Brien	Office of Public prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr G A Georgiou SC with Ms C A Boston	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Joel Parker Henderson, on 7 August 2015 you were found guilty by a jury in this Court of the murder of a 14 year‑old autistic boy, Timothy, known generally as Timmy, O’Brien. The murder occurred in the early hours of 5 January 2013 at a house at 12 Carlyle Street, Scarsdale near Ballarat. A co‑offender, Darren Wilson, has already been sentenced in respect of Timmy O’Brien’s murder and other related serious offences after a trial before King J. In that case Her Honour imposed on Wilson a total effective sentence of 30 and a half years imprisonment with a non‑parole period of 26 years in respect of his conviction for the murder and two charges of incitement to murder arising out of attempts to dispose of witnesses. It is now the duty of this Court to sentence you in respect of Timmy O’Brien’s murder according to law. You were convicted of murder only. You were not charged with any other offences.
As I have already observed, Timmy O’Brien was autistic. He attended Ballarat Special School and lived in Smythesdale, not far from Scarsdale, with his mother, Debra O’Brien and his mother’s partner, Peter Williams. Mr Williams who suffered a mild intellectual difficulty, treated Timmy as his stepson. Their relationship was close, and to some extent at least, mutually dependent. Mr Williams supplemented a disability pension by doing odd jobs, such as mowing lawns and the like, around the area of the home he shared with Timmy’s mother; jobs in which Timmy often participated. Mr Williams was, in fact, the cousin of your co‑offender, Wilson, but they were, and had been for some time, on less than friendly terms at the time of the events with which this case is concerned.
The Scarsdale house in which Timmy O’Brien was murdered was occupied at the relevant time by a young woman, Rachel Curtis, and friends of hers, Jess Connery and her boyfriend, Dylan Hamilton.
In the early hours of Saturday 5 January 2013, you, Wilson and another young woman, Lisa Tresize, and her two children travelled to Scarsdale after meeting up in Ballarat. You brought with you the axe that was to become the weapon with which Timmy O’Brien was…

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 Henderson

Details

AGLC: R v Henderson [2015] VSC 653
Case: [2015] VSC 653
Decision Date: 13 November 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Henderson involved the sentencing of the appellant for a murder committed as part of a joint enterprise. The victim had an acquired brain injury that rendered him vulnerable, and the attack was impulsive and uncontrolled. The appellant had a history of psychiatric conditions and was considered to have a significantly reduced capacity for self-control at the time of the offence. The Crown Court of Victoria was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence, balancing the gravity of the crime, the appellant’s personal circumstances, and the need to protect the community.

The central legal issues revolved around the appellant's diminished capacity, the nature of the joint enterprise, and the appropriate punishment considering the appellant’s personal history and the need for community protection. The court had to weigh the severity of the crime against the appellant's impaired mental state and impulsive behaviour, alongside the necessity to deter future crimes and safeguard society. The court also considered the principle of parity with the co-offenders' sentences, ensuring that the sentence was just and proportionate.

The court recognised the appellant's acquired brain injury and psychiatric condition, which significantly impaired his ability to control his behaviour at the time of the offence. The court found that while the crime was heinous, the appellant's diminished capacity warranted a reduced sentence. The court also took into account the need for protection of the community and deterrence of similar offences. Ultimately, the court sentenced the appellant to 24 years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 20 years, reflecting a balanced approach that considered both the severity of the crime and the appellant's personal circumstances.

The final orders included a sentence of 24 years imprisonment for the appellant, with a non-parole period of 20 years. This sentence aimed to provide justice for the victim, ensure community protection, and reflect the appellant's diminished capacity and personal circumstances. The court’s decision demonstrated a nuanced approach to sentencing, balancing the various factors involved in the case.

Orders