R v Horrocks - [2001] VSCA 230

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

No. 314 of 2000

THE QUEEN

JOHN BRETT HORROCKS

---

JUDGES:	WINNEKE, P., BROOKING and BUCHANAN, JJ.A.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	5 December 2001
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	6 December 2001
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2001] VSCA 230

---

Criminal law - Murder, attempted murder and recklessly endangering life - Three victims - Sentence of "life imprisonment" with non-parole period of 23 years - Appellant suffering from deep-seated and well entrenched depressive disorder associated with feelings of "victimization by others" - Appellant neither "deluded" nor incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his actions nor their wrongness - Judge finding that depressive disorder reduced appellant's moral culpability and moderated to an extent the full application of principles of general and specific deterrence - Whether proper effect given to those findings in the sentencing process - Whether sentences "manifestly excessive" - Appeal dismissed.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P.A. Coghlan, Q.C. and Ms G. Cannon	Ms K. Robertson, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Appellant	Mr O.P. Holdenson, Q.C.	C.D. Traill – Lawyers

WINNEKE, P.:

Shortly after 11 o'clock in the morning on 3 August 1999 the appellant, John Brett Horrocks, who was then aged 38, left his room in Chisholm College at La Trobe University, taking with him a .38 calibre Smith & Wesson revolver with the magazine fully loaded and 45 spare bullets in his pockets. He had murder on his mind and his principal targets were Michael Capraro, Sally Mitchell and Kevin Coates, who were employed in and around the "Eagle Bar" in the Union Building, which was only some 100 metres from his room in Chisholm College. He wanted revenge against his principal targets for what he perceived was unfair treatment of him when he had been employed at the "Eagle Bar" earlier in the year. His working hours, so he believed, had been capriciously and high-handedly reduced, thus substantially reducing his income. His motive and intent were made clear in the note which he had left behind in his room, which read as follows:

"I'm not crazy. I tried every legal way possible to find justice for being wronged. This is a warning to employers, politicians and corrupt men of authority. The little guy is getting tired of being used and shat upon with no avenues for fair play."

He concluded with a quotation from "Julius Caesar":
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war."

His aim, as he was later to tell the police, was to kill his three principal targets, as many other innocent people who got in his way and, hopefully, to have himself gunned down by police at the end of the rampage.

His plan was thwarted before it could be fully effectuated, but tragically after one of his intended victims had been shot dead in his office, and another had been injured - luckily not badly - by a shot which he had fired at her from close…

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 Horrocks

Details

AGLC: R v Horrocks [2001] VSCA 230
Case: [2001] VSCA 230
Decision Date: 6 December 2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Horrocks involved the appellant, who was convicted of murder, attempted murder, and recklessly endangering life, in relation to three separate victims. The case was heard in the Court of Appeal where the appellant sought to challenge the severity of his sentence. The appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 23 years. He argued that the trial judge did not properly consider the impact of his deep-seated and well-entrenched depressive disorder on his moral culpability and the principles of general and specific deterrence.

The court was required to determine whether the trial judge properly considered the appellant's depressive disorder in assessing his moral culpability and whether the sentence was manifestly excessive in light of those considerations. The court needed to examine whether the trial judge's findings on the impact of the depressive disorder were adequately reflected in the sentencing process and whether the sentence imposed was commensurate with the principles of criminal justice.

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had properly considered the appellant's depressive disorder in assessing his moral culpability and in determining the appropriate sentence. The court found that the appellant was neither deluded nor incapable of understanding the nature and quality of his actions or their wrongness. The depressive disorder, while reducing the appellant's moral culpability and moderating the application of deterrence principles, did not warrant a significantly reduced sentence. The court concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive and dismissed the appeal. The appellant's life sentence with a non-parole period of 23 years was upheld as appropriate given the circumstances of the case.

Orders