R v Hood - [2002] VSC 123

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1515 of 2001

THE QUEEN

RAYMOND JOHN HOOD

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	25 MARCH 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	12 APRIL 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R. v. RAYMOND JOHN HOOD
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 123

---

CATCHWORDS: Sentence – Aid or abet suicide (s.6B(2) Crimes Act 1958) – Legal rationale for offence found in importance of human life and protection of vulnerable individuals – Elements of denunciation and general deterrence relevant – Varying degrees of moral culpability recognised – Publicly expressed determination of deceased to commit suicide – Pressure exerted on offender to ensure death occurred – Offender provided assistance by purchase of medication and encouragement by presence – Offender of unblemished character – Sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment wholly suspended.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	W. Morgan-Payler Q.C.	Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	J. Sutherland	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Raymond John Hood, you have pleaded guilty to aiding or abetting Daryl John Colley to commit suicide on 21 April 2001. I must now sentence you. In order to do so, it is necessary to describe the circumstances surrounding Daryl Colley's death.

In April 2001, Daryl Colley was just under 31 years of age. Although he had previously been a partner in a heterosexual marriage, he had subsequently adopted a homosexual lifestyle. He performed with some success as a female impersonator or, as his friends described it, as a "drag queen", miming songs and dancing in gay clubs and bars. On those occasions he would use the name "Rosie" and exhibit a distinctly female personality. Among the comments made about the deceased by his friends was that he was "a drama queen" and a person constantly wishing to be the centre of attention.

In the year 2000, you terminated an eight year relationship with a Ms Narelle Cannaway. Later that year you were introduced to Mr Colley by your mother, who had become friendly with him after witnessing his performance as "Rosie" at a Christmas work party.

At this time both you and Daryl Colley had experienced several disastrous personal relationships, yours being heterosexual and his homosexual. A friendship developed between you almost immediately. You described Mr Colley to your counsel, Ms Sutherland, as gentle, loving and caring; a person who made you feel good about yourself and, you believed, a friend for life.

The relationship became a sexual one and on 9 September 2000 you set up house together at 61 Isla Avenue, Glenroy.

Your relatives and friends, who had always regarded you as heterosexual, were very surprised at this turn events but, it seems, were accepting of it.

About a month after you had commenced to cohabit, you learnt that Daryl Colley was HIV positive but that did not diminish your feelings for him. Your relationship was a monogamous one in which you were mutually supportive partners, doing everything together.…

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 Hood

Details

AGLC: R v Hood [2002] VSC 123
Case: [2002] VSC 123
Decision Date: 12 April 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hood came before the court involving the defendant, Hood, who was charged with aiding or abetting suicide under section 6B(2) of the Crimes Act 1958. The dispute centred on Hood's involvement in the suicide of another individual who had publicly declared their intent to end their life. Hood was accused of providing assistance by purchasing medication and offering encouragement by his presence during the act.

The legal issues the court was required to address included the appropriate legal rationale for the offence of aiding or abetting suicide, the relevance of the elements of denunciation and general deterrence, and the recognition of varying degrees of moral culpability. Additionally, the court needed to consider the circumstances surrounding the suicide, including the deceased's determination, the pressure exerted on Hood, and Hood's character. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Hood, taking into account both the gravity of the offence and the mitigating factors present in the case.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of human life and the protection of vulnerable individuals. It acknowledged the relevance of denunciation and general deterrence as elements in sentencing for aiding or abetment of suicide. The court recognised that while there are varying degrees of moral culpability, the circumstances of this case warranted a sentence that reflected both the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating factors. Given that Hood was of unblemished character and had not directly caused the suicide but rather provided assistance, the court opted for a sentence that was both punitive and rehabilitative. Hood was sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, wholly suspended, reflecting the court's consideration of the mitigating factors and the need for a balanced approach to justice.

The final orders of the court were that Hood was to be sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, wholly suspended, with no conviction recorded. This decision highlights the court's careful consideration of both the legal framework and the individual circumstances of the case, aiming to achieve a just outcome that aligns with the principles of denunciation, deterrence, and rehabilitation.

Orders