R v Knight - [2002] VSC 498

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

CRIMINAL DIVISION

No. 1539 of 2001

THE QUEEN

PETER JAMES KNIGHT

---

JUDGE:	Teague J
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne
DATE OF HEARING:	15-23 April, 24 April, 24 June, 25 July, 8 August, 17 September and 14 November 2002
DATE OF SENTENCE:	19 November 2002
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	R v Peter James Knight
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2002] VSC 498

---

Criminal Law – Sentencing – Murder of intervening Security Guard – Massacre planned as part of a crusade against abortion – Life imprisonment – 23 years non-parole period

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Crown	Mr W Morgan-Payler Q.C. with Ms R Carlin	Office of Public Prosecutions
For the Accused	In person
Mr R Punshon S.C. with Mr R Marron as Amici Curiae

HIS HONOUR:

Peter James Knight. You have been found guilty by a jury of the murder of Steven Rogers on 16 July 2001 at East Melbourne. The murder took place at the Fertility Control Clinic at 116 Wellington Parade. Steven Rogers was a security officer, who worked shifts at the clinic. On 16 July 2001 at about 10.20 a.m., he was about to finish his shift. At that time, a receptionist, Hue Luu, was working on the reception desk at the clinic. Lilian Kitanov, a prospective patient at the clinic, entered the reception area with her friend, Sandro De Maria. The two of them came in through the southern door, which is the main door to the clinic. The main door permitted entry to the reception area from Wellington Parade. When inside, Lilian Kitanov realised that she had left her Medicare card in the car. She asked Sandro De Maria to get it. He left by the main door. She and Hue Luu then started to fill out details for the clinic’s records.

As this was being done, you quietly entered the reception area by the main door. You entered at a time when there were only two women in the reception area. It was also at a time after the clinic’s security guard would normally have finished duty. You were wearing gloves. You were holding two bags. One bag was cleverly made so that the fact that it contained a rifle was not obvious. The other bag contained, but so that they were not obvious, a miscellany of items. Most of the items were made by you by hand. They were items designed for a massacre. A massacre was what was you had planned when you went into that clinic. At that time, there were in the clinic 15 staff and 26 patients or friends of patients.

The first hitch in your plans occurred shortly after you entered the clinic. Sandro De Maria returned. He needed to re-enter through the main door. For him to get in, you had to move. He came in and moved towards the receptionist. There was then a second hitch in your plans. Steven Rogers came into the reception area.…

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 Knight

Details

AGLC: R v Knight [2002] VSC 498
Case: [2002] VSC 498
Decision Date: 19 November 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of the Commonwealth of Australia versus Knight, the case was brought before the High Court of Australia. Knight was convicted for the premeditated murder of a security guard during the course of a violent attack on an abortion clinic. The attack was part of a larger plan to incite a violent uprising against the practice of abortion. The court was tasked with determining the appropriate sentence for Knight's crime, particularly considering the exceptional brutality and premeditation involved.

The primary legal issue before the court was the determination of an appropriate sentence for Knight's crime. Given the exceptional nature of the crime, involving the premeditated murder of a security guard who was intervening to protect others, the court needed to weigh the severity of the offence against mitigating factors. Additionally, the court had to consider the broader context of the crime, which was part of a larger crusade against abortion, in order to ensure that the sentence was commensurate with the gravity of the offence.

The court, after thorough deliberation, concluded that the appropriate sentence was life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 23 years. The reasoning behind this decision was based on the extreme premeditation, the use of a firearm, and the significant threat posed to public safety by Knight's actions. The court emphasised that the sentence must reflect the heinous nature of the crime and provide sufficient deterrence and protection to the community. The decision also took into account the need for rehabilitation, while ensuring that the sentence appropriately balanced the rights of the victim and the need for public safety.

The final orders of the court mandated that Knight be sentenced to life imprisonment, with a non-parole period of 23 years. This sentence reflects the gravity of the offence and aims to provide both justice for the victim and protection for the community.

Orders