R v Holden - [2007] VSC 417

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No.1404 of 2007

THE QUEEN

GRAHAM JOHN HOLDEN

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	17 July 2007
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 October 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Holden
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 417

---

Murder trial - Manslaughter plea – psychological history – 6 years - minimum 4 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C Beale	Office of Public Prosecution
For the Accused	Mr L Hartnett	Patrick Dwyer and Associates

HER HONOUR:

Graham John Holden, on 20 July 2007 a jury was empanelled to try you upon a count of murder in respect of the death of Lee Torney. The jury sat for just two days and ultimately, after discussions with the Crown, a plea of guilty to a count of manslaughter was accepted by the Crown.

Some of the circumstances surrounding the murder are contained in the prosecution opening (Exhibit 1 on the plea). In short compass, the deceased, Lee Torney, was apparently growing cannabis from at least the period of November 2004 through to April 2005. It is clear that you were assisting him in relation to at least part of that time, by providing accommodation at your premises, as the cannabis was being grown nearby, and it would appear that you were also helping him to grow it, although your assistance was not always successful.

The Crown accept that the killing took place in circumstances where there was a dispute in relation to the state of a cannabis plant or plants and that Lee Torney struck you, initially, with a shovel, as I understand it, in the leg area. You then wrested the shovel off him and struck him a number of times, particularly to the head. The evidence from the pathologist and the anthropologist was that there were at least three applications of force to the cranium of Lee Torney and possibly more, but, due to the state of decomposition of the body, it is not possible to say exactly how many. You have then tied the body of Lee Torney to the back of your vehicle and dragged it some distance to a mine shaft at the rear of your property. The body has been placed down that mine shaft and various pieces of rubble and material placed on top of it. That was on 16 April 2005.

The police clearly suspected that you were responsible for what, at that stage, was considered the disappearance of Lee Torney. You contributed to the disappearance theory with various reports that you made to different people about what Torney had told you about going bush or disappearing. You indicated to people that he had told you things about disappearing.

You made a formal statement to the police in August 2005, in which you stated that you believed that Lee Torney's disappearance was related to his connections to the underworld figure Carl Williams and that…

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 Holden

Details

AGLC: R v Holden [2007] VSC 417
Case: [2007] VSC 417
Decision Date: 12 October 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Holden, the respondent faced trial for the alleged murder of an individual. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the respondent pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder but instead argued for a manslaughter conviction due to diminished responsibility stemming from his psychological history. The trial court was tasked with determining the appropriate conviction, considering the psychological evidence and the nature of the crime.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was whether the respondent's psychological history sufficiently diminished his responsibility for the crime, warranting a manslaughter rather than a murder conviction. The court had to weigh the respondent's history of mental health issues against the gravity of the crime committed, assessing whether his mental state at the time of the incident met the criteria for diminished responsibility. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the appropriate sentencing if a manslaughter conviction was determined.

The court found that the respondent's psychological history did indeed contribute to a diminished state of responsibility. The evidence presented demonstrated that the respondent's mental health issues were significant and had a substantial impact on his ability to control his actions at the time of the incident. Consequently, the court accepted the plea for manslaughter. In determining the sentence, the court concluded that a minimum of four years was necessary, with a total sentence of six years. This decision balanced the severity of the crime with the respondent's psychological condition. The court's final orders reflected this decision, mandating a custodial sentence of six years, with a non-parole period of four years.

Orders