R v Jones - [2002] VSC 602

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1443 of 2002

THE QUEEN

GARY JOHN JONES

---

JUDGE:	COLDREY J
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	9 DECEMBER 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	20 DECEMBER 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R. v. JONES
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 602

---

Sentence – Manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act – Plea of guilty – Offender assaulted his six week old twin son who died from blunt head trauma – Offender of low intelligence with anger problem usually controlled by medication – Offender's mental disabilities required some measure of reduction in the level of moral culpability and moderation of general deterrence – Relative youth taken into account – sentenced to be imprisoned for 9 years with a non-parole period of 6 years.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Colin Hillman SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	Len Hartnett	McLennans

HIS HONOUR:

Gary John Jones, you have pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of your son Jordan Cameron Hynes-Jones who died in the Royal Children's Hospital, Parkville on 20 June 2000. The facts immediately surrounding the commission of this offence may be simply stated.

On Friday 16 June 2000 you and your partner Charmaine Hynes and your children moved into a Ministry of Housing house at 1 Dyer Court Traralgon. Your children were all very young. Joshua the eldest was 12 months old. Your twin sons Jamie and Jordan were aged just over six weeks. During 17 June you and Ms Hynes spent the day unpacking and arranging your possessions in the new home.

At about 8 p.m. your sister Stacey Jones arrived. At that time the twins who were wrapped in baby blankets had been placed on the couch in the lounge room. They were on the sides with their backs against the back rest. The seat of the couch was 40 centimetres or 16 inches from the floor. Shortly thereafter Ms Hynes and your sister left to go shopping at the Traralgon Plaza. Prior to that time Jordan had been crying. According to your sister you picked him up and checked his nappy. You asked your partner if he needed a bottle and she said he was not due for one. You then replaced him on the couch after giving him a dummy.

The two of them were away for a period of time in excess of 20 minutes during which you were alone with the twins and Joshua. When they returned to the house you told them that Joshua had pulled Jordan off the couch onto the floor. Jordan was then on your bed and appeared to your wife to be blue whilst your sister described him as pale and semi-awake with blue lips. You were instructed by the women to try to keep Jordan awake while an ambulance was called by your sister. This you attempted to do by tapping him lightly. You also prevented him swallowing his tongue.

Ambulance personnel…

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 [2002] VSC 602
Case: [2002] VSC 602
Decision Date: 20 December 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Jones, the defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter by an unlawful and dangerous act, resulting from his assault on his six-week-old twin son, leading to the infant's death from blunt head trauma. The defendant, who suffered from low intelligence and anger problems typically managed by medication, found himself unable to control his emotions at the time of the incident. The matter was heard in the higher court, which was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for the defendant's crime.

The court faced the challenge of balancing the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation in its sentencing decision. It considered the defendant's intellectual disabilities, which required a reduction in the level of moral culpability and a moderation of the general deterrence. Additionally, the court took into account the defendant's relative youth. After careful consideration of these factors, the court determined that the defendant should be sentenced to imprisonment, with a specific focus on his rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Upon evaluating the circumstances of the case and the defendant's background, the court found it appropriate to impose a sentence of nine years imprisonment, with a non-parole period of six years. This decision aimed to strike a balance between the need for punishment, deterrence, and rehabilitation, while also considering the defendant's intellectual disabilities and the tragic nature of the crime. The court's ruling took into account the unique circumstances of the case and the potential for the defendant to benefit from rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Orders