R v Jones - [2018] VSC 415

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S CR 2017 0282

THE QUEEN
v
KERRY RACHAEL JONES	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Taylor J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	23 July 2018
DATE OF SENTENCE:	31 July 2018
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Jones
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2018] VSC 415

---

CRIMINAL LAW – Sentence – Manslaughter – Stabbing – Domestic violence – Accused previously convicted of using a knife to stab a partner during a domestic dispute – Plea of guilty – Genuine remorse – Guarded prospects of rehabilitation.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Ms F Dalziel	Mr J Cain, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Mr A Halphen	Ann Valos Criminal Law

HER HONOUR:

Kerry Jones, you have pleaded guilty to one charge of manslaughter based on an unlawful and dangerous act, namely the stabbing of Daniel Lee O’Brien in the chest with a large kitchen knife on 9 December 2016.

The maximum penalty for manslaughter is 20 years’ imprisonment.

Summary of Offending

You began a relationship with Daniel O’Brien, known as “Danny”, in 2013. It was a volatile relationship, marred by illicit drug use and domestic violence. You were both users of “ice” and seemingly chronically short of money. Those close to each of you observed you both engage in aggressive behaviour. There were instances of physical violence.

On 29 April 2015, you attended the Werribee Police Station to report an incident that had occurred that day where Mr O’Brien had grabbed you around the throat, as well as earlier incidents in which he had threatened to harm and kill you. Mr O’Brien was charged with and, in July 2015, pleaded guilty to assault. Additionally, police obtained an intervention order on your behalf. With the support of Anglicare and Yarra Housing, you obtained premises independent of Mr O’Brien. Notwithstanding, however, the terms of the intervention order, you continued to contact Mr O’Brien, visiting him at his home and he you at your home.

On 12 October 2015, you again attended the Werribee Police Station to report an incident that had occurred on 8 October 2015. Mr O’Brien was staying at your house by your invitation. You had become pregnant to him. Following a verbal argument you heard Mr O’Brien swearing in the bedroom. You entered that room to tell him to calm down. He pushed you from the room. In response, you armed yourself with a knife from the kitchen and returned to the bedroom to confront Mr O’Brien and tell him to leave. Mr O’Brien grabbed you by the throat and said “c’mon you dog, stab me”. You dropped the knife and were punched to the head twice. You slapped him. And he slapped you in return.

Notwithstanding that you later signed a statement of no complaint, police issued charges against Mr O’Brien. These were unresolved at the time of his death.

Police issued a further charge against Mr O’Brien relating to a breach of the intervention…

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 Jones

Details

AGLC: R v Jones [2018] VSC 415
Case: [2018] VSC 415
Decision Date: 31 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of R v Jones was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The accused, Jones, stood charged with manslaughter following an incident where he stabbed a person during a domestic dispute. Jones had previously been convicted of a similar offence involving a knife during a domestic altercation. This time, Jones entered a plea of guilty, which was accepted by the court. The sentencing hearing necessitated consideration of various factors, including the nature of the offence, Jones's prior criminal history, his expression of remorse, and his potential for rehabilitation.

The court was required to determine an appropriate sentence, taking into account the gravity of the offence, the circumstances of the stabbing, and the principles of sentencing in relation to manslaughter. Key issues included the relevance of Jones's previous conviction, his expressed remorse, and his prospects for rehabilitation. The court had to balance these factors against the need to deter such conduct and protect the community.

In delivering the judgment, the court acknowledged Jones's genuine remorse and his guarded prospects of rehabilitation. However, the court also considered the seriousness of the offence and the potential for significant harm caused by the use of a knife in a domestic setting. The previous conviction for a similar offence further underscored the need for deterrence. The court ultimately determined that a sentence of imprisonment was necessary, but also took into account the mitigating factors presented. The court sentenced Jones to a term of imprisonment with specific conditions aimed at facilitating his rehabilitation.

The final orders of the court included the imposition of a custodial sentence, along with directions for Jones to participate in specified rehabilitation programs during his incarceration. The court also ordered that Jones undergo regular assessments to monitor his progress and any changes in his prospects for rehabilitation.

Orders