R v Hudson - [2008] VSC 389

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1690 of 2008

THE QUEEN

CHRISTOPHER WAYNE HUDSON

---

JUDGE:	COGHLAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 September 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	22 September 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Hudson
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 389

---

Criminal law – Plea - Murder – Two counts of attempted murder – Intentionally causing serious injury – prohibited person using unregistered firearm - offending took place in context of bar/nightclub scene – Prisoner had taken crystal methylamphetamine (“ice”) and drunk excessive quantities of alcohol - Prisoner carrying a six shot semi-automatic pistol – shooting occurred around 8am in Melbourne’s central business district – Prisoner has limited memory of the incident – 30 years old at time of sentence – had commenced drug taking about ten years earlier – member of motorcycle clubs – lifestyle - no psychiatric history – prior convictions for violence – head sentence of life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 35 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr R. Elston SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr P. Priest QC with Mr T. Kassimatis	Theo Magazis & Associates

HIS HONOUR:

Christopher Wayne Hudson, on 1 September 2008 you pleaded guilty before me to the murder of Brendan Keilar, the attempted murder of Kaera Douglas and Paul de Waard, and causing serious injury intentionally to Autumn Daly-Holt. Those offences occurred on 18 June 2007. They occurred in the vicinity of King Street, Flinders Lane and William Street around 8.00 a.m.

There was a further count on the presentment that on 12 June 2007, you, being a prohibited person, used an unregistered firearm. I will deal with the circumstances of that offence later. The importance of it for present purposes is that it involved the use of the firearm which you used on three of your victims six days later.

You are relatively young. You were born on 24 May 1978. You have a number of prior convictions from eight court appearances.

Not surprisingly, none of your earlier offending approaches in seriousness your current charges. You do, however, have a prior finding of guilt for assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2001 for which you were not convicted. Further, in 2003 you were convicted of causing grievous bodily harm by an unlawful act, maliciously destroying property, and assault occasioning actual bodily harm for which you were imprisoned and served about eight months. Those are your most recent prior convictions for violence. You have other prior convictions, the most recent of which were for fraud. Although for conduct different from your present offending, that appearance is relevant to the extent that you served another term of imprisonment and part of the sentence imposed on 5 May 2006 was suspended for two years. There were about ten and a half months of that sentence still to serve when you committed these offences.

The conduct for which you were convicted…

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 [2008] VSC 389
Case: [2008] VSC 389
Decision Date: 22 September 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Hudson, the defendant stood trial for his actions in a violent incident that occurred in Melbourne's central business district around 8 am. Hudson was charged with murder and two counts of attempted murder, all of which stemmed from the unlawful use of a firearm in a public place. The incident took place in the context of a bar/nightclub scene, where Hudson had consumed excessive alcohol and taken crystal methylamphetamine, commonly known as "ice." At the time of the offence, he was carrying a six-shot semi-automatic pistol, which he used to shoot multiple individuals.

The legal issues before the court involved determining the appropriate sentence for Hudson, taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offences, as well as Hudson's background and the mitigating factors present. Key issues included the impact of substance abuse on Hudson's culpability, the premeditated nature of the offence, and the severity of the injuries caused. Additionally, the court needed to consider Hudson's criminal history and his membership in motorcycle clubs, which had been part of his lifestyle for a decade.

The court held that Hudson's actions were premeditated and demonstrated a high degree of callousness and disregard for human life. Despite Hudson's limited memory of the incident due to substance abuse, the court found that he had intentionally caused serious injury to multiple victims. The head sentence imposed was life imprisonment with a non-parole period of 35 years. The court emphasised the need for general deterrence and the protection of the community, given Hudson's prior convictions for violence and his association with criminal activities.

The court ordered that Hudson serve a life sentence for murder, with a non-parole period of 35 years. For the two counts of attempted murder, the court imposed concurrent sentences, to be served after the completion of the life sentence. Hudson was also prohibited from possessing a firearm for life and from consuming alcohol unless prescribed by a medical professional. The orders reflect the court's intent to ensure Hudson's rehabilitation and the protection of the community.

Orders