R v J P - [2008] VSC 84

EDITED VERSION	Do Not Send for Reporting
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1622 of 2007

THE QUEEN

---

JUDGE:	WHELAN J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	11 October 2007, 6 March 2008
DATE OF SENTENCE:	28 March 2008
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v JP
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2008] VSC 84 [Edited Version]

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Murder – Very significant co-operation with Police – Already serving life sentence – Sentenced to life imprisonment, non-parole period fixed preserving existing earliest eligibility date.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr G. Horgan SC and Mr A. Tinney	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr D. Dann	McLennan (Chris) & Co

HIS HONOUR:

JP, on Thursday 11 October 2007 you pleaded guilty to the murder of Shane Chartres-Abbott on 4 June 2003.

You murdered the deceased by shooting him with a handgun as he walked along a suburban street.

You and an accomplice had conducted reconnaissance prior to the shooting, and had planned the shooting and had planned your getaway. The deceased left his home with his de facto wife and another person at approximately 8.50 am on 4 June 2003. The group were walking down the suburban street in which the deceased and his de facto wife lived when you and your accomplice ran towards them. The two people with the deceased were pushed or knocked to the ground. You fired two shots at the deceased. The first struck the left side of his body and the second struck him under his chin. The two of you then escaped in a car you had parked in a car park nearby.

At the time of the shooting the deceased was on trial at the County Court in Melbourne on charges of rape and assault. According to the account of events you have now given police, you carried out the murder at the request of a close associate of yours. You did it as a “favour” for him. He in turn had been requested to arrange for revenge to be taken against the deceased by a person said to be close to a victim of assault and rape by the deceased.

When you first admitted your involvement in this murder to police officers in July 2006, you would not identify anyone involved other than yourself. Eventually, you identified the person who requested you to carry out the attack on the deceased, the person who assisted you in that attack, and two persons who were then members of the Victoria Police Force who assisted you both before and after the murder.

You described to investigating police where you disposed of the weapon which was used in the murder and the police recovered a weapon, which was consistent with the forensic evidence as to the weapon used, from the location which you identified.

In the account of events you have given to police you say that the murder was done because…

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 J P

Details

AGLC: R v J P [2008] VSC 84
Case: [2008] VSC 84
Decision Date: 28 March 2008

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v J P, the defendant was convicted of murder and was already serving a life sentence. The defendant provided significant assistance to the police in relation to other crimes, which was considered during the sentencing process. The court was required to determine the appropriate sentence, taking into account the defendant's cooperation and the severity of the offence. The legal issues involved assessing the mitigating effect of the defendant's cooperation and determining the appropriate length of the non-parole period.

The court acknowledged the defendant's substantial cooperation with the police, which was considered a significant mitigating factor. The court found that this cooperation warranted a reduction in the severity of the sentence. However, the gravity of the offence of murder meant that a life sentence was still appropriate. The court fixed the non-parole period in a manner that preserved the existing earliest eligibility date for parole, balancing the need for punishment with the recognition of the defendant's cooperation.

The court concluded that the defendant's significant cooperation with the police warranted a reduction in the severity of the sentence. However, the nature of the offence meant that a life sentence remained appropriate. The non-parole period was fixed to preserve the existing earliest eligibility date for parole, ensuring that the defendant's cooperation was properly recognised without undermining the seriousness of the crime. This approach balanced the need for punishment and deterrence with the recognition of the defendant's contributions to the investigation of other crimes.

The final orders of the court were that the defendant be sentenced to life imprisonment with a non-parole period fixed to preserve the existing earliest eligibility date for parole. This decision recognised the defendant's significant cooperation with the police while ensuring that the severity of the murder offence was adequately addressed through the sentence imposed.

Orders