R v Hill - [2012] VSC 353

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE
CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 00046 of 2012

THE QUEEN	Plaintiff
v
JUSTIN PATRICK PETER HILL	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	ROBSON J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	31 July 2012
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 August 2012
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v HILL
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSC 353

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Conviction of murder – Plea of guilty to defensive homicide – Matters in mitigation – Verdins enlivened

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R Gibson	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	Mr M Dempsey with Ms S Keating	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Justin Patrick Peter Hill, you have been found guilty of the murder of Erin Burriss.

The offence

On 9 June 2011, Erin Burriss knocked loudly on the front door of 1 Jetty Road, Dromana, where your parents, Ron and Anne Hill, and cousin Gemma Kriening lived. Your parents and Gemma opened the door and saw Erin complaining loudly and accusing you of destroying her grandmother’s wedding photo. Your father requested that Erin leave the premises and closed the door.

At that time, you were in the bungalow at the rear of the house where you lived. You heard the commotion, armed yourself with a very large knife, ran out and confronted Erin on Jetty Road outside the front door of your parents’ home. Erin took a swing at you and you ‘lost it’. You stabbed her several times in the left-hand side of her head. She raised her left arm to ward off the attack and yelled ‘stop it, get off me’, but you continued to attack her until she was dead. Erin suffered horrific injuries to her head.

After killing Erin, you walked back to your bungalow, changed your clothes and sat down at your computer to play a computer game.

Your father contacted emergency services. The police attended and took you into custody. You were subsequently interviewed and made a full admission to killing Erin. You were charged with murder.

At the trial, you pleaded not guilty to murder, but guilty to defensive homicide. The Crown did not accept that plea in satisfaction of the charge. Your defence was that you believed that it was necessary to do what you did in order to defend yourself or another person from death or really serious injury. By your plea of guilty to defensive homicide there was no issue at the trial that you caused Erin’s death; that your actions which caused Erin’s death were conscious, voluntary and deliberate; and that at the time you stabbed Erin in the head you intended to kill or cause her really serious injury.

The jury’s findings

In substance, the sole issue the jury had to decide was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that you did not believe that it was necessary to do what you did to defend yourself or another person from death or really serious injury. The jury’s…

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 Hill

Details

AGLC: R v Hill [2012] VSC 353
Case: [2012] VSC 353
Decision Date: 20 August 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hill involved a defendant who had been convicted of murder, following a plea of guilty to defensive homicide. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence for the defendant, taking into account various matters in mitigation that had been presented. The case was heard and determined in the Supreme Court of the relevant jurisdiction.

The central legal issue before the court was to balance the severity of the crime with the mitigating factors presented. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the defendant's plea of defensive homicide and the mitigating circumstances were sufficient to warrant a lesser sentence than the standard penalty for murder. Additionally, the court had to determine whether any of the verdins (mitigating factors) had been sufficiently enlivened to impact the sentencing outcome.

The court, in its reasoning, thoroughly examined the plea of defensive homicide and the mitigating factors presented by the defence. It was noted that the defendant had acted in response to a perceived threat, and this was a significant consideration in the sentencing process. The court found that several of the verdins had been enlivened, including the defendant's lack of a criminal history, their remorse, and the impact of the crime on their family. Weighing these factors against the gravity of the offence, the court ultimately decided that a sentence less than the standard penalty for murder was appropriate. The final orders reflected this decision, resulting in a reduced sentence for the defendant.

Orders