R v Kibble - [2002] VSC 52

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1519 of 2001

THE QUEEN

JOHN NAUNTON KIBBLE

---

JUDGE:	Gillard J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	12 and 19 February 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 March 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Kibble
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 52

---

Criminal law – Sentence

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr C. Hillman SC	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Prisoner	Mr I. Hayden	Ellinghaus & Lindner

HIS HONOUR:

Mr Kibble, you may be seated, this may take some time. I also grant authority to members of the media to record these reasons.

John Naunton Kibble, you have pleaded guilty to one count of intentionally causing serious injury to Catherine Mary Cranko, without lawful excuse, at Yarraville on Thursday 30 November 2000.

The offence of intentionally causing serious injury to another has been on the statute books for well over a hundred years. The latest offence was created by the Crime (Amendment) Act 1985, which is now s.16 of the Crimes Act 1958. It carries a maximum sentence of 20 years' imprisonment. On any view, it is a serious offence.

It is necessary at the outset to trace a few basic facts to show the history of your plea of guilty. The offence occurred on 30 November 2000 and you were arrested on the evening of that day. You participated in a record of interview that night, during which you admitted that you had inflicted injuries on the victim, Catherine Mary Cranko. However, you gave a version which, in one fairly important area, is inconsistent with the version of Ms Cranko.

At the committal held on 28 June 2001, you were represented by Mr Peter Faris QC, a very experienced senior member of the profession, much experienced in the area of criminal law. At that stage, you were facing three charges, including a charge of attempted murder. After some discussion, it was agreed that the attempted murder charge should be withdrawn and that you would plead guilty to intentionally causing serious injury. That is what happened. You did plead guilty to that one charge.

Subsequent to 28 June 2001, you decided to change your plea and as a result, a presentment was filed in this Court. This occurred on 10 October 2001. You pleaded not guilty on that occasion to three charges, including attempted murder.

Through your legal representatives, you made application to this Court for an order that certain witnesses be cross-examined pursuant to what is now known in this State as a Basha inquiry: see R v Joseph Basha (1989) 39 A.Crim.R. 337, New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal; and DPP v Denysenko (1998) 1 V.R. 312 at 316-7.

The application came on before Teague J on 20 December 2001 and your Counsel, Mr Ian Hayden, cross-examined three witnesses, including the victim, Miss Cranko. Her cross-examination was lengthy and detailed.

You were re-arraigned before me on Tuesday 12…

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 Kibble

Details

AGLC: R v Kibble [2002] VSC 52
Case: [2002] VSC 52
Decision Date: 1 March 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of R v Kibble involved the defendant, Kibble, who was charged with criminal offences. The nature of the dispute was the determination of an appropriate sentence following Kibble's conviction. The matter was heard in the higher courts of Australia. The central legal issues that the court was required to decide involved the principles of sentencing in criminal cases, particularly focusing on the proportionality of the sentence to the offence committed and the circumstances surrounding Kibble's criminal conduct. The court had to consider various factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offence, the character of the offender, and any relevant mitigating or aggravating circumstances.

In delivering its judgment, the court meticulously analysed the evidence and arguments presented by both the prosecution and the defence. It examined the seriousness of the offence, the degree of Kibble's culpability, and the potential impact of the sentence on both the offender and the community. The court also assessed the submissions made by the parties regarding any mitigating factors, such as Kibble's background, remorse, or any previous good conduct. The court considered these elements in light of established legal principles and precedents, ensuring that the sentence was both just and proportionate to the crime committed.

The court concluded that the sentence should reflect the gravity of the offence while also taking into account the mitigating factors presented. It determined that the appropriate punishment balanced the need for deterrence and retribution with the potential for rehabilitation. The court issued a detailed rationale for the sentence, ensuring that it was transparent and justifiable within the legal framework. The final orders included the imposition of a specific term of imprisonment, along with any additional penalties or conditions deemed necessary by the court.

Orders