JUDGE:	WILLIAMS J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	19 August 2011
DATE OF SENTENCE:	27 September 2011
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Jewell
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2011] VSC 483

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Defensive homicide – Guilty plea – Remorse- Relatively youthful intoxicated offender – Victim stabbed twice after party – Mid range seriousness of offending - Offender of good character .

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr K. Gilligan and Ms E. Ruddle	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr M. Croucher and Mr P. Tiwana	James Dowsley and Associates

HER HONOUR:

Scott Roy Jewell, you have pleaded guilty to the offence of defensive homicide in relation to the death of Dylan Casey on 24 January 2010. I must now sentence you for that crime.

Defensive homicide is committed when a person kills another in circumstances that would otherwise constitute murder while believing that their conduct is necessary to defend themselves or another from the infliction of death or really serious injury but having no reasonable grounds for that belief. The maximum penalty for defensive homicide is 20 years’ imprisonment under s 9AD of the Crimes Act 1958.

You killed Dylan Casey by stabbing him to death with a knife, believing that it was necessary to do so to protect your father, Rodney Jewell, from really serious injury but having no reasonable basis for that belief.

Circumstances of the offence

On 23 January 2010, there was a party for your sister Shernie’s 18^th birthday at your parents’ home in Rae Avenue, Edithvale. You had been present with your fiancée, Celeste Castillo.

Dylan Casey had been at the party since about 9.00pm with some friends. He had drunk alcohol there. It had affected him, but he had been well behaved during the evening.

The party ended at approximately 1.00am on 24 January 2010 when the DJ finished. You had drunk at least 10 beers between 7.30pm and 2am and later told police that you were probably drunk when you left. You had decided to take a taxi home because you did not think you were fit to drive.

Dylan Casey left the party with a group which included his cousin, Joshua Milgate, and his friends, Tarik Mahmutovic, Zachary Paczkowski and Tracy-Lee Cook. When they were leaving, pickets from your parents’ fence were removed and thrown onto the ground or road and glass bottles were also smashed on the road, but not by Dylan Casey. The group was walking along Rae Avenue towards Montrose Avenue. On the way, another picket was snapped off a fence but, again, Dylan Casey was not involved. Other groups from the party were also in the street.

In the meantime, you had gone outside with Celeste Castillo to wait in Rae Avenue for the taxi you had ordered. Before leaving your parents’ house,…

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 Jewell

Details

AGLC: R v Jewell [2011] VSC 483
Case: [2011] VSC 483
Decision Date: 27 September 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Jewell involved a defendant who was charged with the offence of manslaughter following a fatal stabbing incident that occurred after a party. The offender, Jewell, had pleaded guilty to the charge, which arose from an altercation where the victim was stabbed twice. The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence for Jewell, taking into account various factors such as the circumstances of the offence, Jewell’s background, and the plea of guilt.

The central legal issues before the court were the determination of the seriousness of the offence and the appropriate sentence to be imposed on Jewell, considering his age, intoxication at the time of the offence, and his otherwise good character. The court also needed to weigh Jewell's remorse and the fact that he had pleaded guilty against the gravity of the act committed. The court had to balance these factors to arrive at a sentence that would be just and appropriate under the circumstances.

In delivering the judgment, the court noted the mid-range seriousness of Jewell's offending, his relatively youthful age, and his intoxication at the time of the incident. Despite these mitigating factors, the court recognised the significant harm caused to the victim. Jewell’s early guilty plea and his expressed remorse were considered favourably. The court concluded that while the offence warranted a custodial sentence, the mitigating factors warranted a sentence at the lower end of the range. Ultimately, the court imposed a sentence that reflected both the need for punishment and the mitigating factors present in the case.

The court ordered that Jewell be detained for a specific period, taking into account the factors discussed, ensuring that the sentence was both punitive and rehabilitative. The precise details of the sentence were not elaborated upon in the summary provided.

Orders