R v Kidd - [2024] VSC 458

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

S ECR 2022 0274

Between:
THE KING
-and-
HAYDEN LEIGH KIDD	Accused

---

JUDGE:	Croucher J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	18 June 2024
DATE OF SENTENCE:	1 August 2024
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Kidd
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2024] VSC 458

---

CRIMINAL LAW — Sentence — Manslaughter — By unlawful and dangerous act — Accused (aged 20) killed his grandmother by striking her several times to head and torso with mattock, leaving mattock embedded in back of her head — Accused’s cousin (aged seven) witnessed killing — Accused suffering from temporary cannabis‑induced psychosis at time — In deluded state, accused believed his grandmother to be his sadistic stepfather posing threat to his younger self (in truth, his cousin) — Accused initially indicted on murder — During trial, expert evidence from two psychiatrists cast doubt on murderous intent — Accused had no reason to suspect cannabis would induce psychotic violence — By consent, jury discharged without verdict and accused pleaded guilty to manslaughter — Because of temporary psychosis, very little moral culpability — Plea of guilty to manslaughter offered well before trial — Remorse — No prior convictions — Good prospects of rehabilitation — Sentencing purposes of general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and community protection of less weight than usual — Current sentencing practices — Singular case calling for merciful sentence — Prison sentence combined with community correction order inappropriate — Instead, sentence of five years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of two‑and‑a‑half years — But for plea of guilty, sentence of seven years’ imprisonment with non‑parole period of four‑and‑a‑half years — Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), ss 5, 6AAA, 18 & 44.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Director of Public Prosecutions	Ms E Ramsay (trial) Mr D Glynn (plea)	Abbey Hogan, Solicitor for Public Prosecutions
For Mr Kidd	Mr T Marsh (trial & plea)	Emma Turnbull Lawyers

HIS HONOUR:

Overview

This case is horrible — so horrible that those of fragile disposition might prefer not to read (or listen) any further. And yet it is also a matter about the muted moral culpability that must be brought into account in the sentencing calculus for an otherwise objectively grave crime committed by a person in the grips of a florid psychosis. Further, in so far as that psychosis came on suddenly, and out of the blue, as a result of the consumption of cannabis, it constitutes a warning not to be ignored.[1]
[1]Apologies to Australian electronic group Severed Heads, as aspects of this paragraph borrow from the opening lyrics to their song Dead Eyes Opened. The lyrics are samples from the voice of the inimitable Edgar Lustgarten narrating the episode Death on the Crumbles from the 1971 BBC radio series Accused in the Box. This episode recounted the trial — presided over by Mr Justice Avory at the Sussex Assizes in 1924 — of Patrick Mahon for the murder of Emily Kaye. Mr…

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 Kidd

Details

AGLC: R v Kidd [2024] VSC 458
Case: [2024] VSC 458
Decision Date: 1 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of R v Kidd, the defendant, aged 20, faced charges following the death of his grandmother, whom he had killed by striking her multiple times with a mattock. The incident was witnessed by the accused's seven-year-old cousin. The accused was suffering from temporary cannabis-induced psychosis at the time of the offence and mistakenly believed his grandmother to be his sadistic stepfather, posing a threat to his younger self. Initially indicted for murder, the accused's plea was changed to manslaughter during the trial, following expert psychiatric evidence that raised doubts about the accused's intent to commit murder. The accused had no prior convictions and expressed remorse for his actions.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine an appropriate sentence, considering the unique circumstances of the offence and the accused's mental state at the time. The court had to balance the sentencing purposes of general and specific deterrence, denunciation, and community protection against the mitigating factors of the accused's temporary psychosis, lack of murderous intent, remorse, and prospects of rehabilitation. The court also had to consider the current sentencing practices and whether the case warranted a merciful sentence due to its singularity.

The court concluded that the traditional purposes of sentencing held less weight in this particular case due to the accused's temporary psychosis and the lack of murderous intent. The court opted for a sentence of five years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of two-and-a-half years, acknowledging the plea of guilty before trial. Without the plea, the sentence would have been seven years’ imprisonment with a non-parole period of four-and-a-half years. This decision was grounded in the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), sections 5, 6AAA, 18, and 44, which guide the court in determining appropriate sentences under such circumstances.

Orders