JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	1 & 3 June 2015
DATE OF SENTENCE:	26 June 2015
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Hughes
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2015] VSC 312

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Intentionally causing injury to two children – Child homicide – Accused smacked three-year-old boy on buttocks, causing bruising and substantial pain – Next day, accused struck first boy’s two-year-old brother on buttocks with wooden part of coat-hanger, causing lineal bruising and substantial pain – Fifteen minutes later, accused threw first child onto bed, causing him to strike head on wall/bed-head and suffer catastrophic brain injury – Delay in calling ambulance – Child died in hospital – Vulnerability of young children – Breach of trust – Accused aged 25 with no prior convictions – Admissions – Early pleas of guilty – Remorse – Good prospects of rehabilitation – Opprobrium in gaol – General deterrence, just punishment and denunciation – Whether, in cases where deceased child is under six years of age, manslaughter ousted by provision creating offence of child homicide – Comparison with sentences for manslaughter of young children – Lawful correction of children – Sentence on first injury offence of eight months’ gaol – Sentence on second injury offence of 12 months’ gaol – Sentence on child homicide of nine years’ gaol – With partial cumulation, total effective sentence of nine-and-a-half years’ gaol with non-parole period of six years and three months – But for pleas of guilty, total effective sentence in the order of 13-and-a-half years’ gaol with a non-parole period in the order of ten-and-a-half years – Crimes Act 1958 (Vic), ss 5, 5A, 6, 15 & 18; Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5 & 6AAA.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr J Champion QC DPP with Ms S Coombes	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Ms R Sleeth	Victoria Legal Aid

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

Overview of offending

On 9 May 2014, Brok Hughes, in a fit of anger, grabbed Zane Bradbury by the back of the neck and threw him towards his bed. As he landed, Zane’s head struck the corner of the bed frame and the wall, and possibly the window sill – it is not clear which. Either way, the force was such that Zane suffered a catastrophic sheering injury to his brain from which he later died.

The gravity of the incident is increased substantially when regard is had to the fact that Mr Hughes was a 25-year-old man entrusted with the care of Zane, who was just a little boy about to turn four years of age. Zane’s sin was to have angered Mr Hughes by ripping a curtain rod from the lounge curtains. Mr Hughes overreacted grossly and criminally. And now Zane is dead.

Only a short while earlier, Zane’s brother Chase, who was…

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 Hughes

Details

AGLC: R v Hughes [2015] VSC 312
Case: [2015] VSC 312
Decision Date: 26 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Hughes was heard by the Supreme Court of Victoria, where the accused, aged 25 and with no prior convictions, faced charges related to the death of a two-year-old child. The accused had admitted to smacking the child on the buttocks, leading to bruising and substantial pain, and subsequently using a wooden part of a coat-hanger on the child's two-year-old brother, which caused further bruising and pain. The following day, the accused threw the first child onto a bed, resulting in a severe head injury and eventual death. The court had to address whether the accused's actions constituted child homicide and how to appropriately sentence the accused, considering factors such as the vulnerability of the children, the breach of trust, and the accused's remorse and prospects of rehabilitation.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the provisions creating the offence of child homicide in the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) applied in cases where the deceased child was under six years of age, and if so, how to appropriately sentence the accused for the series of offences. The court also needed to consider the principles of general deterrence, just punishment, and denunciation, as well as the impact of the accused's early guilty pleas on the sentence. The court had to balance the severity of the accused's actions against the possibility of rehabilitation and the opprobrium experienced in gaol.

The court found that the provisions creating the offence of child homicide did apply in cases where the deceased child was under six years of age. The court sentenced the accused to eight months’ gaol for the first injury offence, 12 months’ gaol for the second injury offence, and nine years’ gaol for the child homicide. The sentences were partially cumulative, resulting in an effective sentence of nine-and-a-half years’ gaol, with a non-parole period of six years and three months. The court acknowledged that, but for the early guilty pleas, the total effective sentence would have been in the order of 13-and-a-half years’ gaol with a non-parole period in the order of ten-and-a-half years. The court considered the appropriate balance between the various sentencing principles, resulting in the sentence imposed.

The final orders of the court were that the accused be sentenced to a total effective sentence of nine-and-a-half years’ gaol, with a non-parole period of six years and three months. This sentence took into account the severity of the accused's actions, the vulnerability of the young children, the breach of trust, and the accused's remorse and prospects of rehabilitation. The court also considered the principles of general deterrence, just punishment, and denunciation, as well as the impact of the early guilty pleas on the sentence.

Orders