R v Heron - [2023] VSC 539

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0007

Between:
THE KING
-and-
STUART LINDSAY HERON	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	21 August 2023
DATE OF SENTENCE:	8 September 2023
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Heron
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 539

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Murder — Accused, infatuated with NC’s girlfriend HB, agreed with her to confront and assault NC — Accused believed NC abusive to HB, including filming of sexual acts with her and distributing to others — Pursuant to plan with HB, accused stalked NC, laid in wait in carpark near his apartment, then accosted him, albeit being armed was beyond plan with HB — NC resisted — In course of struggle, accused departed radically from plan and assaulted NC repeatedly with hammer and knife, for ten minutes, killing him — Assault premeditated for days, but murder spontaneous — Horrific injuries — Brutal killing — Intention to kill — Motive for confrontation plain, but motive for murder unclear — Objectively serious instance of murder — Offer to plead guilty to statutory murder rejected — Plea of guilty to common law murder — Remorse — Attempted suicide in prison — No prior convictions — Positively good character — Strong prospects of rehabilitation — Hardship of prison conditions given mental ill‑health and pandemic restrictions — Significant weight to general deterrence, denunciation and just punishment — Significant but lesser need for specific deterrence and community protection — Importance of rehabilitation — Parsimony — Current sentencing practices — Standard sentence offence — Sentence of 22 years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of 15 years — But for plea of guilty, sentence of 27 years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of 21 years — Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5, 5A, 5B, 6AAA, 11A & 18; Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 3 & 3A.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms E Ruddle KC with Ms A Singh	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For Mr Heron	Mr R Backwell	May Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

It was just past midnight when Nicholas Cameron stepped out of his twentieth‑floor apartment in Southbank with his little white terrier, Misty. They headed down to his red hire car, which was parked on the third level of the adjacent carpark. As they neared the car, Misty’s quizzical look and brief pause suggested she sensed a foreboding presence. She was right. Mr Cameron, however, failed to notice a thing. He had no idea that Stuart Heron, a man he did not know and had never met, was lying in wait for him in the shadows with violence on his mind.

Mr Heron first walked, then ran, towards Mr Cameron. He had agreed with Mr Cameron’s girlfriend Heide Bos to confront and assault him, perhaps to kidnap him, but nothing more. Ill‑conceived though it was, the aim was to put the frighteners on Mr Cameron to ensure he…

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 Heron

Details

AGLC: R v Heron [2023] VSC 539
Case: [2023] VSC 539
Decision Date: 8 September 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Supreme Court of Victoria, the case of R v Heron addressed a brutal murder committed by the accused, who had premeditated a confrontation with the deceased. The accused, infatuated with the girlfriend of the deceased, conspired with her to confront and assault the deceased, believing the deceased had been abusive to her. The accused's actions escalated dramatically during the confrontation, resulting in a prolonged and violent assault that ultimately led to the deceased's death. The accused pleaded guilty to murder under the common law, rejecting an offer to plead guilty to statutory murder. The court had to consider various sentencing factors, including the nature of the crime, the accused's remorse, and his prospects for rehabilitation.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence for the accused, balancing the gravity of the crime with the accused's personal circumstances and the broader principles of sentencing. Key considerations included the premeditated nature of the confrontation, the spontaneous and brutal execution of the murder, the accused's remorse, and his mental health. The court also had to weigh the objectives of general deterrence, denunciation, specific deterrence, community protection, and rehabilitation, alongside the need for parsimony in sentencing. The court needed to ensure that the sentence reflected the severity of the crime while considering the accused's personal circumstances and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court concluded that the murder was an objectively serious instance, marked by premeditation and brutality, but the intention to kill was not as clear as the intent to confront. The accused's remorse, evident through his attempted suicide in prison, and his otherwise good character and prospects for rehabilitation, were significant mitigating factors. However, the court emphasised the importance of general deterrence and denunciation, alongside the need for specific deterrence and community protection. The court found that a sentence of 22 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years was appropriate, recognising the plea of guilty reduced the severity of the sentence from 27 years with a non-parole period of 21 years. This sentence aimed to achieve a balance between the need for punishment and the potential for rehabilitation.

The court ordered that the accused be sentenced to 22 years' imprisonment with a non-parole period of 15 years. This decision reflected the court's comprehensive assessment of the crime's severity, the accused's personal circumstances, and the broader objectives of the sentencing framework. The sentence underscored the importance of deterrence and denunciation while also considering the potential for rehabilitation and the unique circumstances of the accused.

Orders