R v Hudson - [2013] VSC 184

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No.129 of 2012

THE QUEEN

VERONICA HUDSON

---

JUDGE:	KING J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 April 2013
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 April 2013
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Hudson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2013] VSC 184

---

Manslaughter – Indigenous female – One stab wound - History of sexual and physical abuse - Turbulent and violent relationship with victim - Victim sentenced to 5 years for GBH on prisoner in 2006 - Prisoner assaulted by victim shortly prior to killing – Tragic personal history – Verdins - Psychiatric issues – Dependent personality - Alcohol and drug dependence.

Sentence: 6 Years’ imprisonment - Minimum 3 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr P Rose S.C.	Office of the Public Prosecutor
For the Accused	Ms Jane Dixon S.C. Ms J Taylor	Victorian Aboriginal Legal Service

HER HONOUR:

Veronica Hudson you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of Edward Heron on 26 December 2011 at the Bendigo Show Grounds Caravan Park. Edward Heron was your partner at that time, and had been for some years, on and off. You were born on 9 May 1970 and are currently 43 years of age.

You have a number of prior convictions dating back to 1987. I do not intend to go through each of those offences. They have been committed and dealt with in the Melbourne Magistrate’s Court, Alice Springs Magistrate’s Court and local courts in New South Wales, over your lifetime. When this offending commenced you were 17 years of age, in respect of the Victorian offences, and the first recorded offence in New South Wales was 1989.

Your 1987 offences relate to loitering for prostitution and unlawful possession. Your 1989 offences, in New South Wales, are soliciting for prostitution near a hospital, and malicious damage. You have over the years been involved in a number of charges relating to assault, assault police, offensive behaviour, common assault, larceny, disorderly behaviour and breaching of suspended sentences of imprisonment, for which you have received every penalty the court can impose, from the rising of the court to good behaviour bonds, fines, suspended sentences, community service orders through to actual custodial sentences. The longest sentence of imprisonment was in 1992, when you were sentenced for common assault, assault with intent to rob, break enter and steal and malicious wounding, to 16 months imprisonment with a non parole period of four months, by the Central Local Court in New South Wales. On the same date you were sentenced to the rising of the court for one count of stealing, one count of assault police, one count of larceny, three counts of failing to appear, two counts of goods in custody, one count of stealing from a dwelling house, one count of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

As indicated your prior convictions are extensive, but in relation to your more recent history, from about 1998, that all occurred in Alice…

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 Hudson

Details

AGLC: R v Hudson [2013] VSC 184
Case: [2013] VSC 184
Decision Date: 26 April 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hudson, the appellant faced charges arising from the stabbing death of a man in a remote location in Western Australia. The deceased was known to the appellant and the pair had a tumultuous and violent relationship. The appellant, who has a significant history of sexual and physical abuse, claimed provocation as a mitigating factor in the circumstances leading to the fatal stabbing. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The key legal issue before the court was whether the appellant's past experiences and the nature of the relationship with the deceased could be considered in assessing the appropriate sentence.

The court considered the various factors that might have influenced the appellant's actions, including her history of abuse, her relationship with the deceased, and her psychiatric condition. The court recognised that the appellant's troubled past and the violent relationship with the deceased had a significant impact on her state of mind at the time of the offence. However, the court also took into account the fact that the appellant had recently been assaulted by the deceased, and that she had stabbed him only once, despite having an opportunity to inflict further harm. The court concluded that while these factors warranted some degree of mitigation, they did not sufficiently justify a reduction from the mandatory minimum sentence for manslaughter.

The court sentenced the appellant to six years in prison, with a non-parole period of three years. This sentence reflected the gravity of the offence, while also considering the appellant's personal history and the circumstances surrounding the death of the victim. The court acknowledged the significant challenges faced by the appellant throughout her life and the impact these had on her actions, but ultimately determined that the mandatory sentencing framework necessitated a substantial custodial term. The court's decision was guided by the need to balance the principles of justice, deterrence, and community protection, with the particular circumstances of the appellant and the offence.

Orders