R v JED - [2007] VSC 348

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT BENDIGO

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1446 of 2007

THE QUEEN	Plaintiff
v
“JED”	Defendant

---

JUDGE:	KELLAM J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	20 April 2007, 9 August 2007
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	21 September 2007
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v JED
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2007] VSC 348

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentencing – Rape - Intentionally causing serious injury – Threats to kill – Elderly victim - Youthful offender – Whether principles referred to in R v Verdins applicable – Prospects of rehabilitation – Sentence 13 years’ imprisonment with non-parole period of 8 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Plaintiff	Ms M Williams SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Defendant	Mr G Mullaly	Legal Aid Victoria

HIS HONOUR:

You, JED have pleaded guilty before me to two counts of rape, one count of intentionally causing serious injury, one count of threat to kill, one count of indecent assault and one count of common law assault.

The crime of rape carries a maximum penalty of 25 years’ imprisonment. The crime of intentionally causing serious injury carries a maximum penalty of 20 years’ imprisonment. The crimes of threat to kill and indecent assault each carry a maximum penalty of 10 years’ imprisonment. The maximum penalty for the crime of common assault is five years’ imprisonment.

These offences took place in Bendigo on 23 August 2006. At the time you were 15 and a half years of age, having been born on 29 January 1991. At the time, and for reasons which I will later explain, you were living with carers in Bendigo. You were at the time under the supervision of the Department of Human Services.

On the afternoon of 23 August 2006 you met a friend and both of you rode your bicycles to the home of one Colin Harrison in Bendigo. Harrison was then aged 35 years. You and Harrison then went to a Safeway store where 20 cans of bourbon and coke were purchased. Surveillance footage records that you went to Safeway at 2.51 pm. You both then returned to Harrison’s home. It is clear that thereafter you consumed a quantity of the alcohol purchased, although the persons with whom you were drinking provided differing statements as to the effect of your consumption of alcohol upon you. Harrison who was not drinking alcohol described you as “legless”. Others did not notice any significant effect upon you. You later told police that you had consumed four to five cans of alcohol and that you were drunk by the time that you left Harrison’s home at between approximately 4.30 and 4.45 pm. Whatever your state of sobriety you were able to ride your bike along a bike path in Kangaroo Flat.

At about the same time your victim, a lady who was then 83 years of age, commenced her usual daily walk along the bike path which is adjacent to the Bendigo Creek. She commenced her walk in…

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 JED

Details

AGLC: R v JED [2007] VSC 348
Case: [2007] VSC 348
Decision Date: 21 September 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v JED, the defendant faced the Supreme Court of Victoria on charges stemming from a serious sexual assault and causing intentional harm to an elderly victim. The case involved an attack in which the defendant not only raped the victim but also inflicted serious injuries, coupled with threats to kill. The court was tasked with determining an appropriate sentence that reflects the gravity of the offences committed against a vulnerable individual.

The primary legal issue before the court was to ascertain the appropriate sentence for a young offender who had committed heinous crimes against an elderly person. The court had to balance the principles of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation as outlined in relevant case law, particularly the principles set out in R v Verdins. The court was required to consider the nature of the offences, the defendant's age, the prospects of rehabilitation, and the impact on the victim.

In delivering the judgment, the court meticulously evaluated the severity of the offences and the defendant’s age at the time of the crime. It found that while the defendant was young, the brutality of the attack and the intent behind it warranted a substantial sentence. The court concluded that a sentence of 13 years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of 8 years was appropriate. This sentence was intended to adequately reflect the gravity of the crimes while also providing the defendant with an opportunity for rehabilitation.

The court ordered that the defendant be imprisoned for a total of 13 years, with a non-parole period of 8 years, reflecting a balanced approach to the sentencing principles applicable in this case.

Orders